0 
0 
0 

9l 

1  I 


DOUGUSS 

Further  Statement  of  Facts 

and  Circvimstances. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/furtlierstatementOOdougiala 


FUETHER  STATEMENT 


EACTS  AND  CIKCUMSTANCES 


CONNECTXD  WITH  THE 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  AUTHOR 


THE  PRESIDENCY  OF  KENYON  COLLEGE, 


IN  ANSWER  TO 


"  THE  REPLY  OF  TRUSTEES,"  ETC. 


BY  D.  B.  DOUGLASS,  LL.  D. 


ALBANY: 
ERASfuS  '3rPE  ASE. 


1845. 


'i^. 


MUNSELL   AND   TANNER, 
PRINTXB8. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  following  statement  drawn  up,  and  originally  designed,  as 
a  letter  to  a  friend,  is  now  respectfully  communicated  to  the  pa- 
trons and  friends  of  Kenyon  College,  and  of  education  generally, 
as  well  as  to  the  friends  of  the  writer,  and  to  all,  in  every  situa- 
tion and  relation,  who  may  have  read  the  pamphlet  to  which  it 
is  an  answer. 

The  position  of  the  writer  is  a  very  painful  one,  but,  so  far  as 
he  can  see,  unavoidable.  Thrown  before  the  public,  by  the  in- 
justice and  cruelty  of  a  corporate  body,  acting  with  the  counte- 
nance and  co-operation  of  a  high  public  functionary,  in  direct 
violation  of  pledged  faith,  he  was  compelled  to  vindicate  himself 
in  a  temperate  but  firm  appeal ;  and  he  has  been  met  in  reply, 
with  scarcely  any  regard  for  the  real  merits  of  the  case,  by 
a  virulent  and  needless  personal  attack  upon  his  name  and  cha- 
racter. To  that  attack  he  now  replies,  and  should  it  be  repeated, 
he  sees  no  alternative  but  to  pursue  the  course  he  has  laid  down 
for  himself  until  it  is  decided  beyond  appeal,  whether  there  is,  or 
can  be,  under  the  constitutional  forms  of  this  enlightened  age 
and  country,  a  vested  right  to  do  torong,  or  an  immunity  superior 
to  moral  obligation. 

But  it  is  not  merely  as  a  matter  of  private  and  personal  griev- 
ance, that  this  subject  is  now  presented.  Questions  of  much 
higher  import  are  involved  in  it.  The  essential  nature  of  the  en- 
dowment -at  Gambler ;  the  due  and  proper  conservation  of  that 
endowment,  as  a  means  of  liberal  education,  and  as  a  property 
of  the  Church,  without  endangering  both,  by  the  union  of 
unlimited  temporal  power,  with  that  which  is,  in  its  naitme,  jure 
divine ;  these,  and  to  some  extent  the  constitution  and  adminis- 


4 

tration  of  educational  trusts  generally,  in  our  country,  are  topics 
of  deep  interest,  which  cannot  fail  to  engage  the  attention  of  the 
intelligent  reader. 

The  writer  regrets  the  necessity  of  drawing  out  his  statement 
to  so  great  a  length,  but  he  trusts  it  will  be  considered,  that  in 
defence  of  charater  as  in  that  of  religiouy  pages  of  elaborate  re- 
ply are  sometimes  necessary  to  neutralize  lines  of  unfounded  as- 
persion. He  hopes  however  that  no  one,  who  thinks  it  worth 
while  to  have  an  opinion  on  the  subject  at  all,  will  be  deterred 
from  reading  the  whole. 

Mbany,  30th  June,  1845. 


LETTER  &C. 


Dear  Sir : 

Your  kind  letter  of  the  16th  ult.,  and  the  interest  you  were  pleased 
to  express  in  my  behalf  on  account  of  the  very  severe  and  vituj)eralive 
character  of  the  Bishop's  "  Reply,"  demand  my  heartfelt  thanks.  They 
should  have  had,  as  well  as  the  pamphlet  itself,  an  earlier  acknowledge- 
ment from  me,  had  that  been  possible;  but  the  nature  of  my  engage- 
ments with  the  Cemetery  Association  at  Albany,  (in  consequence  of  the 
lateness  of  the  season  when  I  commenced  that  work)  precluded  the  pos- 
sibility of  my  attenling  to  any  other  thing,  until  that  was,  in  some  mea- 
sure, complete;  and  the  delay  has  been  further  prolonged  by  other  imper- 
ative engagements  since.  I  regret  it  the  more,  as  1  find  that  a  notice  of 
my  intention  to  answer  the  "  Reply,"  which  I  sent  down  lobe  inserted  ia 
one  of  the  New  York  papers,  in  November  last,  was  not  attended  to  by 
the  person  to  whom  I  sent  it,  and  I  have  been,  thus  long,  exposed  there- 
fore, to  the  implication  of  having  })lead  guilty  to,  or  at  least  tacitly  ad- 
mitted the  slanderous  insinuations,  which  constitute  so  large  a  part  of  the 
publication  referred  to.  I  am  now,  however,  once  more  in  the  vicinity 
of  my  papers,  and  not  a  little  thankful  in  looking  over  them,  to  find  how 
provident  1  have  been,  in  securing  documents  and  references,  to  sustain 
me,  in  this  otherwise  unequal  contest.  And  now,  before  I  answer  you  at 
large,  let  us  look  for  a  moment,  at  the  stale  of  the  controversy,  and  the 
relations  of  the  parties  engaged  in  it. 

Mv  adversaries  would  have  you  believe,  that  in  the  publication  of  my 
former  statement,  I  was  guilty  of  a  wanton  and  unprovoked  attack  upon 
the  "powers"  at  (lambier — the  Bishop,  or  the  Trustees,  as  the  case  may 
be;  and  upon  this  circumstance  they  found  not  only  the  ordinary  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  the  defensive  party,  but  the  most  unlimited  license 
in  regard  to  the  moans  of  defence.     Let  us  see  with  what  propriety. 

I  was  at  Gambier,  under  a  solemn  compact,  to  which  I  had  pledged 
myself,  for  life.  I  was  engaged  in  the  peaceful  discharge  of  my  duties 
under  that  compact;  and  perfectly  unsuspicious  of  any  evil.  No  crime,  or 
offence,  or  neglect  of  any  kind,  had  been  laid  to  my  charge.  The  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Trustees  show,  that  I  enjoyed  the  approbation  and  "  high 
regard'"  of  that  body,  as  "  a  gentleman  of  integrity  and  moral  worth" — 
•'  a  most  excellent  man,  entitled  to  universal  respect  and  affection." 
Bishop  Mcllvaine,  the  official  head  and  representative  of  the  Board,  (writ- 
ing about  me  after  my  dismissal,)  expressed  his  "  entire  confidence"  in 
my  "  strict  integrity,  and  gentlemanly  character,"  and  his  "  high  respect 
for  my  eminent  attainments  in  science,"  "which,"  said  he,  "do  honor 
to  you  and  to  your  country;"  adding  his  testimony  at  the  same  time  to 
ray  "diligence  and  zeal"  in  promoting  "the  interests  of  the  institution,'* 


6 

and  to  my  "  kindness  and  hospitality,  in  endeavoring  to  enliance  the 

comfort  and  happiness  of  the  students,  and  secure  their  affections."* 

Finally,  the  whole  body  of  students,  concurring  in  all  these  particu- 
lars— my  "  genUemanly  character,"  my  "eri)inent  attainments,"  my 
"moral  and  religious  worth,"  my  "  zeal  and  diligence  in  behalf  of  the 
institution,"  and  my  "  sincere  kindness  and  hospitality"  to  themselves, 
added  over  and  above  all,  many  gratifying  assurances  of  their  "  personal 
esteem  and  respect."  Yet,  in  the  midst  of  all  these  golden  opinions, 
freely  expressed,  without  any  converse  allegation,  or  the 
slijihtest  presence  of  an  accusa/ion  of  any  kind  against  me,  the  Board,  in 
a  secret,  inquisitorial  process,  and  without  a  moment's  warning,  put  an 
end,  or  affected  to  put  an  end  to  my  engagement,  as  President,  and  im- 
mediately published  abroad  my  name  as  having  been  stricken  from  the 
rolls  of  the  Institution. 

We  have  heard  of  such  a  thing  as  "  guilt  without  criminality,"  and  I 
suppose  there  may  be  also,  vice  versa,  criminality  without  guilt;  but  in 
what  code  of  jurisprudence  or  morals  was  it  evei  heard  of  belbre,  that  a 
man  was  visited  with  the  severest  possible  punishment,  in  consideration 
of  his  "  eminent  attainments,"  his  "  gentlemanly  character,"  his  "  moral 
and  religious  worth,"  or  his  "zeal  and  diligence"  in  discharge  of  his 
duty  ? 

There  is  no  explaining  away  or  evading  this  absurdity.  Bishop  Mc- 
Ilvaine  says,  "it  was  the  desiie  of  the  Board  to  do  all  things  in  the  kind 
est  manner  towards  Mr.  D."  and  "so  to  injure  as  little  as  possible,  his 
future  standing,  hence  the  con)plimentary  language,"  &c.  This  would 
be  very  intelligible,  if  Mr.  D.  had  been  put  upon  his  plea,  and  convicted 
o(  anything  worthy  of  punishment;  but  what  does  it  mean  when  applied 
io  a.  person  legally  i'>nocenl — against  whom  no  charge  of  any  kind  had 
been  exhibited — "  a  most  excellent  man,  entitled  to  universal  respect  and 
affection  ?"  Is  outrage  any  the  less  outrage,  because  committed  in  a 
kind  manner .'' 

Tlie  consequences  of  this  proceeding,  to  me,  were  the  sacrifice  of  my 
property,  the  taking  away  of  my  proper  and  legitimate  mrans  of  support, 
the  scattering  of  my  family  like  sheep  without  a  shepherd,  ai  d  the  frus- 
tration of  all  my  cherished  schemes  for  the  education  of  my  children; 
the  entire  uprooting,  in  short,  of  all  my  plans  and  prospects  in  life.  Yet 
these  benevolent  and  kind  gentlemen  would  have  it  believed,  that  all 
this  was  no  aggression;  and  that  /,  in  presuming  to  set  forth  the  wrongs 
done  me,  in  a  calm,  temperate,  and  Christian  spirit, — no  one  can  deny 
that  such  is  the  character  of  my  statement — have,  wantonly,  disturbed  the 
peace  of  the  community,  and  almost  forfeited  my  claim  to  be  treated  as 
a  human  being! 

"  O  judgment,  thou  art  fled  to  brutish  beasts, 
And  men  have  lost  their  reason  !" 

To  this  hour,  notwithstanding  all  the  abuse  they  have  endeavored  to 
heap  upon  me  in  their  "  Reply,"  I  stand  uncharged,  as  you  justly  re- 
mark, with  any  thing  that  would  be  admitted  as  of  the  least  weight 
under  a  legal  rule  to  show  cause.  There  is  no  lack  of  inuendo, — vasrue 
insinuations  implying  something, — rhetorical  tricks  and  subtleties  in 
abundance,  conveying  to  the  mind  of  the  careless  or  prejudiced  leader, 
the  idea  of  some  un-^amed  fault  or  failure  on  my  part,  which  the  writer 
seems  too  humane  to  specify.  The  whole  streng  h  of  the  pamphlet  lies 
in  this.     Full  from  beginning  to  end  of  the  gall  of  defamation;  and  barren 

•  This  lansuage  is  quoted  from  the  letter  of  the  students,  but  as  the  draft 
of  that  letter  is  claimed  to  have  been  vrritten  by  Bp.  M.,  I  am  entitled  to 
consider  it  his  language  also. 


every  where  of  authentic  facts  and  sober  arguments.    Examine  for  your- 
self and  tell  me  if  i(  is  not  so. 

I  was  dismissed,  you  will  please  to  recollect,  for  unpopularity  with 
the  students,  and  the  authors  of  the  reply  took  their  position  vauntingly, 
(see  their  published  card  in  October  last,)  in  the  first  place  to  justify 
that  act;  an.l  secondly,  to  exonerate  Bishop  Mcllvaine  from  having  had 
any  part  in  it.  Now  I  have  read  the  reply,  as  you  may  suppose,  with 
some  little  attention,  and  I  have  not  yet  been  so  fortunate  as  to  discover  a 
single  passage,  in  the  way  of  argument,  that  bears  (logically)  upon  either 
of  ihese  questions.  They  have  reiterated,  with  a  great  many  changes  and 
variations,  the  charge  of  unpopularity,  (a  charge  which  I  shall  show 
to  be  utterly  without  foundation,)  but  beyond  that  there  is  nothing — abso- 
liUely  nothing.  They  have  not  proved  the  fact;  they  have  not  said  a  word 
to  show  that  the  alleged  unpopularity,  if  true,  was  not  a  natural  and  ne- 
cessary consequence  of  my  resp«)nsibilities.  It  might  have  been,  as  I  have 
elsewhere  said,  an  evidence  of  faithfulness.  They  have  not  said  a  word  to 
show  that  it  was  any  cause  for  their  unceremonious  violation  of  a 
contract;  not  a  woid  to  justify  the  insidiousness  and  secrecy  of  the 
process  of  my  removal;  nor,  llhally,  a  word  to  prove  (logically)  that 
Bishop  Mcllvaine  was  not  a  full  participator,  positively  as  well  as  nega- 
tively, in  that  process.  Their  whole  collective  energy  has  been  concen- 
trated in  the  effort  to  defame  and  villify  my  character,  and  to  impair,  if 
possible,  my  claim  to  confidence.  And  of  this  let  me  now  give  you  a 
few  examples: 

Passing  with  a  mere  notice  tho  round  and  plenary  denials  which  appear 
(p.  5,  and  elsewhere,)  and  which  are  to  be  expected  perhaps  in  propor- 
tion as  proof  is  scanty,  you  will  observe  occasional  reflections,  in  the  way 
of  pelilio  principii,  upon  my  "  rashness  in  refusing  to  resign,"  and  in  pub- 
lishing my  "  statement."  "  His  only  wise  plan,"  say  they,  (p  4)  "was 
to  let  his  case  be  forgotten  as  soon  as  possible.  He  does  not  know  what 
is  good  for  him,"  (Col.  Bond,  p.  12,)  i.  e.  in  refusing  to  resign.  "  D.  has 
brought  all  these  things  upon  himself.  He  would  have  consulted  his  dig- 
nity and  peace  by  receiving  the  advice  to  resign  in  the  spirit  in  which  it 
was  given,"  (Col.  Cummings,  p.  47,)  &c.  Whether  I  was  rash  in  refu- 
sing to  resign  depends  upon  whether  I  was  vorong;  and  that  is  not  shown. 

Look  also  at  the  reflections,  (p.  9  and  elsewhere,)  equally  gratuitous, 
that  I  was  indifferent  as  to  the  financial  condition  of  the  institution.  "The 
question  whether  we  were  running  in  debt  to  sustain  the  College,  was 
one  which  never  troubled  Mr.  D  ,"  &c.  If  it  were  even  tnie,  (and  it  can 
be  shown  to  be  most  maliciously  otherwise,)  what  possible  relevancy 
has  it  ? 

Look,  then,  at  the  representation  of  my  private  affairs  at  Brooklyn  pri- 
or to  my  removal  to  Gambier;  what  has  it  really  to  do  with  the  proper 
subject  matter  of  this  controversy  ?  I  speak  not  now  of  its  falseness — 
that  will  come  up  in  due  time — but  of  its  logical  correctness  and  relevancy, 
supposing,  for  argument's  sake,  it  were  all  true.  Were  my  embarrass- 
ments (at  a  period  of  universal  stagnation)  likely  to  render  my  removal 
less  difficult  ?  Was  ray  mere  going  to  Gambier  to  relieve  me  from  them 
at  all  ?  Did  the  circumstances  alleged,  supposing  them  to  have  been  as 
represented  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  absolve  him  or  the  trustees  from  any 
part  of  their  obligation  as  parties  to  the  compact  under  which  I  went? — 
What  was  it  that  made  it  the  best — if  it  was  best — for  myself  and  my  fa- 
mily to  go  to  Gambier  at  all  ?  Was  it  not  especially  the  permanency  of 
the  situation  ?  And  would  it  not  have  been  madness  in  me  to  have  re- 
moved myself  and  them  thither  at  great  expense  and  great  sacrifice,  (I 
insist  upon  the  propiiety  of  this  word,)  without  a  full  and  unquestioning' 
reliance  upon  the  Bishop's  propositions  in  this  respect  ?    These  questions 


8 

are  answered  from  the  surface  of  the  "  Reply,"  without  any  arguments, 
and  the  answers  will  show  how  perfectly  sophistical  and  irrelevant 
to  the  real  matters  in  controversy  this  whole  discussion  is.*  But  it  was 
not  inserted  without  motive,  and  if  you  will  tum  to  the  25th  and  follow- 
ing pages  of  the  Reply,  you  will  see  by  the  spirit  in  which  its  details  are 
enlarged  upon,  what  that  motive  unquestionably  was;  it  will  be  still  more 
apparent  when  I  come  to  the  facts. 

Another  example  in  the  same  si)irit  is  found  on  page  29th,  where  Bi- 
shop Mcllvaine  speaks  of  my  not  being  his  "  first  choice  for  the  Presi- 
dency." I  shall  show  presently  that  I  was  his  first  choice  ;  but  suppose 
I  was  not;  what  bearing  has  this  fact  upon  the  real  merits  of  the  case  ? — 
Not  the  slightest.  If  1  had  been  his  hundredth  choice,  his  obligation,  in 
the  compact  finally  made  between  us,  would  not  have  been  a  whit  the 
less.  The  subject  is  wholly  irrelevant  therefore,  and  could  only  have  been 
pressed  into  the  controversy  like  the  preceding,  for  the  purpose  of  defa- 
mation. ^ 

Look  then  at  the  insinuation  (p.  31,)  in  regard  to  the  truth  of  my  state- 
ment of  my  atfairs,  before  going  to  Gambier.  "  We  know  all  about  his 
relations  to  the  Greenwood  Cemetery"  say  they,  "  from  which  that  annu- 
al receipt  proceeded,  and  could,  if  we  chose,  give  a  statement  of  particu- 
lars that  would  convince  Mr.  D.  that  we  do  know."  What  a  parade  of 
magnanimous  charity  is  here  exhibited  in  keeping  back  what  never  was 
pretended  (o  be  concealed  !  My  relations  with  the  Greenwood  Cemetery 
were  no  secret;  but  does  it  follow  that  a  knowledge  of  these  is  a  know- 
ledge of  all  my  relations  and  interests  in  life  ?  The  Bishop  knew,  unless  he 
had  forgotten,  that  while  I  was  in  the  Greenwood,  1  was  also  a  pro- 
fessional Civil  Engineer,  in  extensive  correspondence;  insomuch  that 
when  I  was  elected  President  of  Kenyon  College  in  1840,  he  was  in  breath- 
less haste  to  communicate  the  fact  to  me  lest  I  should  "  commit  myself 
to  any  other  engagement."  J  could  lave  added,  moreover,  with  evidence 
of  the  fact,  that  within  a  little  more  than  a  year  before  that  election,  sal- 
aries and  fees  were  tendered  tome  to  an  aggregate  amount  of  ^6,000.  In 
one  instance  a  permanent  salary  of  ^2,500  which  was  refused;  and  in  an- 
other a  fee  of  $500  for  only  three  weeks  service,  repeatedly  urged  upon 
me  by  the  intermediation  of  third  parties,  and  refused ;  and  many  other 
like  examples. 

Closely  connected  with  these  charitable  insinuations,  and  a  step  beyond 
them  in  the  moral  quality,  are  the  suggestions  (p.  33,  and  elsewhere,)  as 
to  the  CAUSE  of  my  embarrassments ;  not  expre.«!sed  in  distinct  terms, 
and  still  less  attempted  to  be  proved,  but  shadowed  forth,  as  better  suited 
the  purpose  of  the  writer,  in  significant  hints  and  allusions.     "  Had  Mr. 

•  The  authors  of  the  "  Reply  "  introduced  this  discussion  as  if  to  repel  a 
charge  of  "base  ingraiitude  and  injustice"  brought  by  me  against  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  ;  which,  they  say,  "  is  the  main  string  upon  which  all  the  harp- 
ing of  (my)  pamphlet  is  struck."  I  deny  that  I  have  charged  either  ingrati- 
tude or  injustice  against  the  Bishop.  Bad  faith  and  injustice  are  doubt- 
less to  be  inferred  from  some  parts  of  my  statement,  though  they  are  by  no 
means  the  "main  string."  But  what  relevancy  has  the  discussion  here  allu- 
ded to,  to  either  of  these  ?  The  question  of  bad  faith  turns  upon  the  con- 
sistency of  the  Bishop's  p?-o/essio7ts  with  his  practice;  thfit  of  injustice  upon 
the  conformity  of  his  ads  with  his  written  or  implied  obligation?  as  head  of 
the  Trust  ;  and  with  either  of  these  my  embarrassments  at  Brooklyn  in  1839 
—40  had  about  as  much  to  do  as  the  annexation  of  Texas.  The  charge  of 
"  base  ingraiitude"  is  a  goblin  of  their  own  raising  ;  evidently  invoked  for  ef- 
fect, and  to  show  or  seem  to  show  "  that  I  have  attempted  too  much  for  my 
own  integrity."    ("Reply,"  p.  32.) 


D.  been  in  the  receipt  even  of  $4000  per  annum  while  residing  in  Nexo 
York  or  Brooklyn,  it  would  have  been  a  kindness  and  favor  to  himself 
and  family,  considering  pcculiarilies  of  character  which  his  friends  will 
readily  advert  to  without  our  being  more  particular,  to  take  him  to  a 
salary  of  $1000  in  such  a  place  as  Gambler.  We  do  not  mean  that  he 
can  understand  this."  Pause  u  moment,  I  pray  you,  over  the  deep  malig- 
nity of  this  thrust.  What  has  the  cause  here  hinted  at  to  do  with  the  action 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  on  the  27th  Feb.  1844;  or  with  the  part  which 
Bishop  Mcllvaine  may  or  may  not  have  taken  in  that  act  .''  Has  it  the 
slightest  relation  to  any  legitimate  object  of  this  controversy.'*  Clearly 
none  whatever.  I  am  before  you,  if  you  please,  demanding  justice — the 
reparation  of  gross  wrong;  and  my  adversary  meets  the  demand  by  going 
far  out  of  his  vvay,  even  abusing  the  sacredness  of  spiritual  confidence, 
to  defame  and  vilify  my  private  character.  Look  at  the  sort  of  insinua- 
tion by  which  this  is  attempted  to  be  done.  How  perfectly  gratuitous  ! 
Is  there  any  where  ii  reputation  so  spotless,  a  character  so  pure, — the 
most  beautiful  exam[)le,  male  or  female,  that  adorns  and  dignifies  huma- 
nity— that  may  not  be  defamed  at  any  time,  if  it  should  suit  the  purposes 
of  malevolence  to  defame  it  in  the  same  way  ?  There  is  no  protection  for 
any  character  against  such  malevolent  assaults,  and  the  more  pure  the 
object  the  o;reaterthe  outrage. 

But  for  the  sake  of  variety,  I  will  give  you  now  an  example  of  a  less 
serious  character.  The  Bishop  while  in  New  York  was  impressed  with 
the  fear,  "  that  things  were  not  going  right  at  the  College,  and  that  he 
should  find  some  fresh  burden  to  be  born  on  his  return  to  Gambier." — 
(Reply  p.  7.)  What  was  the  ground  of  this  ap^jrehension  ?  Simply  that 
his  correspondents  said  nothing  at  all  on  the  subject  ! !  A  most  pregnant 
premiss  truly  The  Bishop  would  do  well  to  keep  it  for  future  uses.  It 
will  prove  any  thing.  I  presume  the  suggestion,  (p.  16)  as  to  the  number 
of  students  that  did  not  come  to  the  College,  belongs  to  the  same  cate- 
gory. And  I  know  not  where  else  to  class  his  proof  (in  the  same  place,) 
that  the  numbers  had  diminished,  under  my  Presidency,  viz.  because  they 
had  increased  only  tico." 

But  again.  "  The  earnest  desire  of  the  Board,  while  flinching  from  no 
duty,  however  painful,  to  do  all  things  in  the  kindest  manner  towards  Mr. 
D  ,  &c."  (Reply,  p.  12),  has  already  been  noticed  in  another  relation. 
I  recur  to  it  again,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  more  particularly  the 
disingenuousness  of  the  logic.  The  question  under  discussion  is  the  essen- 
tial justice  or  injustice  of  my  removal  from  rffice  :  Some  show  of  argu- 
ment had  been  attempted  to  make  it  out  expedient,  but  not  a  word  to  prove 
it  just,  and  the  moment  this  point  is  fairly  reached,  it  is  evaded  by  the 
dexterous  interposition  of  a  circumstance,  viz.  the  manner  of  my  re- 
moval ;  while,  by  a  specious  talk  about  "  duty  however  painful,  &c." 
the  mind  of  the  reader  is  betrayed  unconsciously  into  an  impression  that 
the  right  and  wrong  of  the  thing  has  already  been  settled  by  some  pre- 
vious argument*  But  the  fallacy  does  not  end  heie.  The  paragiaph 
goes  on  to  state,  that  it  was  in  the  overflow  of  their  kind  feelings 
towards  me  (!)  that  the  Board  "  placed  my  removal  only  on  the  ground 

•  The  committee  of  the  Board  who  originated  the  action  in  that  body 
against  me,  expressly  disclaim  having  made  any  "  inquiry  as  to  the  justice 
of  the  difficulty."  Their  preamble  and  report  is  as  follows:  "  The  com- 
mittee which  has  had  in  charge  the  inquiry  into  the  causes  that  have  produ- 
ced the  existing  diminution  in  the  number  of  the  students  belonging  t«  the 
classes  of  Kenyon  College  and  Preparatory  Schools,  has  had  the  subject  in 
anxious  consideration  and  made  all  the  investigations  in  their  power,  and 
REPORT,  that  in  their  view  two  facts  have  mainly  led  to  the  presrnt  state  of 
things  :  One  is,  the  high  charges  in  the  senior  grammar  school,  whereby  that 

2 


10 

of  want  of  acceptableness  with  the  students,"  without  "  giving  other  rea- 
sons." What  other  reasons  ?  The  whole  proceeding,  the  Bishop  and  the 
Board  tell  us,  was  an  inquiry  into  ihe  financial  condition  of  the  Institution 
— the  causes  of  the  diminished  revenue,  &c. — an  inquiry  perfectly  imper- 
sonal. My  connection  with  it  arose  only  from  my  (alleged)  unaccepla- 
blentss,  and  must  have  been  limited  specifically  to  that  circumstance. 
(if  the  Bishop  and  the  Board  speak  iruth.^  Yet  here  they  allude  to 
"  other  reasons,"  as  if  the  enquiry  was  personal  to  myself,  embracing 
the  circumstances  of  my  conduct  and  character  at  large  !  !  How  is  this  ? 
If  the  enquiry  was,  as  they  pretend,  purely  financial,  what  do  they  mean 
by  other  reasons  for  my  d'smissal  ?  If  personal,  what  is  to  be  thought  of 
all  their  former  disclaimers  on  this  point  ?  Nor  is  this  jumble  of  contra- 
dictions confined  to  the  page  quoted.  It  runs  through  the  "  Reply." 
Every  attem.pt  to  set  forth  "  other  reasons,"  (which  is  in  short  the  gist  of 
the  whole  publication,)  involves  the  same  dilemma,  and  shows  at  once 
the  temper  of  the  publication,  and  the  liability  of  extreme  subtlety  to 
over-reach  and  betray  itself. 

But  let  us  follow  the  logic  of  these  gentlemen  in  another  of  its  features. 
I  wish  you  to  notice  how  rapidly  their  wings  expand  after  they  have  fairly 
shuffled  off  the  restraints  of  the  original  controversy,  and  taken  their 
ground  against  me  personally.  On  page  13  of  the  "  Reply,"  the  writer 
remarks,  that  with  "  many  eminent  qualities,  a  man  may  be  totally  unfit 
"  for  the  Presidency  of  a  college,  and  may  utterly  fail  of  exerting  that  in- 
"  fluence  over  the  minds  of  students,  which  commands  obedience  at  the 
*'  same  time  that  it  warms  and  enlists,  instead  of  chilling  and  repelling, 
"  the  affections  of  the  heart."  The  drift  of  this  language  is  not  to  be 
mistaken.  Under  the  form  of  a  mere  abstract  potentiality,  speciously 
expressed,  it  is  evidently  intended  to  convey  to  the  mind  of  the  cursory 
reader  the  idea  that  there  was  an  actual  personal  unfiJncss  lor  the  Presi- 
dency of  a  college,  and  an  actual  failure  in  exerting  "  that  influence 
over  the  minds  of  the  students  which  commands  obedience,  while  it  warms 
and  enlists  without  chilling  and  repelling  the  affections  of  the  heart." 
Yet  all  this,  you  will  see,  is  a  mere  inuendo,  unsustained  by  one  iota  of 
proof. 

Again,  (Reply,  p.  13)  the  author  continues,  "  after  he  declined, 
the  necessity  of  his  removal  became  still  more  imperious,"  as  he  could 
not  be  kept  there  "  in  the  temper,  towards  the  officers,  and  the  trustees, 
and  the  Bishop,  which  it  was  manifest  the  process,  thus  far,  had  raised." 
This  is  a  precious  avowal,  truly.     Banditti  take  the  lives  of  their  captives 

department  is  almost  reduced  to  a  nonentity.  The  other  they  mention  with 
great  reluctance,  because  it  attaches  to  a  most  excellent  man  well  worthy  of 
universal  respect  and  affection, — the  point  to  which  they  refer,  is  theunpopu- 
larily  of  the  President.  In  regard  to  the  justice  of  this  difficulty  the  commit- 
tee  do  not  pretend  to  speak  ;  but  it  is  believed  by  us  to  exist,  and  to  operate 
prejudicially  to  the  institution  over  which  he  presides.  The  committee 
therefore  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions: 

1.  That  the  charge  for  tuition  in  the  senior  preparatory  school  be  reduced, 
&c- 

2.  That  while  we  seriously  deprecate  the  necessity,  we  are  constrained,  in 
view  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  respectfully  to  ask  President  Doug- 
lass to  resign  his  official  relation  to  this  Institution  ;  assuring  him  at  the  same 
time,  that  the  Board,  as  a  body  and  individually,  entertain  for  him  the  kindest 
feelings  of  regard. 

3.  That  the  salary  of  President  Douglass  be  paid  him  to  the  first  of  Sep- 
tember  next. 


11 

on  the  very  same  principle  ;  the  latter,  after  being  rifled  and  robbed,  are 
not  likely  to  be  in  a  very  amiable  temper  with  their  spoilers,  and  the  ne- 
cessity for  taking  life  becomes,  under  such  circumstances,  "  still  more 
imperious."  The  allegation,  however,  is  not  more  disingenuous  than  it 
is  untrue.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Fuller  was  my  spiritual  adviser  during  these 
persecutions,  and  will  bear  me  witness  that  my  temper  was  not  unduly 
excited.  "  I  am  amazed  to  see  you  bear  up  so  well,"  was  his  continual 
exclamation. 

Finally,  in  this  connection,  (Reply,  p.  14),  the  author  still  goes  on  as 
follows  :  "  To  have  kept  him  there,  would  have  only  given  him  the  great- 
er opportunity  of  injuring  the  college,  without  the  least  reason  to  expect 
any  change  in  his  constitutional  and  habitual  unfitness  for  his  office." 
Here  is  another  sweeping  inuendo,  equally  unsupported  and  still  more 
subtle  than  the  preceding  ;  and  in  the  same  ratio  more  slanderous.  But 
what  I  wish  you  chiefly  to  observe  is  the  summary  process  by  which  one 
of  the  "most  excellent  men,  entitled  to  universal  respect  and  affection,  full 
of  diligence,  and  zeal,  and  kindness,  and  hospitality,"  is  converted  into 
a  cold  and  cruel  despot, — "  commanding  obedience,"  indeed,  but  "chil- 
ling, and  repelling  the  affections  of  the  heart,"  and  not  only  "  constitu- 
tionally and  habitually  unfit  for  office,"  but  even  seeking  opportunity  to 
injure  the  institution,  which  every  consideration  of  duly  and  policy  should 
have  impelled  him  to  promote.  All  this  in  the  turn  of  a  single  leaf,  loith- 
out  aparticle  of  evidence,  by  mere  periphrasis,  and  the  unlimited  license 
of  words.     "  Eleven  buckram  men  grown  out  of  two." 

Such  are  a  pari,  a  small  part  of  the  fallacies  and  falsehoods  of  this  pre- 
cious production.  Many  others  will  be  developed  as  we  proceed.  Do  I 
call  them  by  too  harsh  a  name  ?  Examine  them  attentively,  and  tell  me 
whether  they  are  not  clearly  intended  to  "  darken  council" — to  mystify 
the  mind  of  the  reader,  and  lead  him  off  as  far  as  possible  from  the  m  it- 
terin  hand,  for  the  manifest  purpose  of  defamation  and  slander  .''  "  And 
who  is  it  ?"  I  almost  hear  you  enquire,  that  descends  to  such  unfair  and 
disingenuous  artifices  .?  Is  it  some  low  paragraphist  in  politics,  who  es- 
teems nothing  unfair  ?  Some  pettifogger,  cunning  in  all  the  arts  of  chi- 
canery, "  to  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason  .'"  No  !  It  is 
neither  one  nor  the  other.  It  is  a  body  of  men  who,  at  this  moment,  are 
legally  intrusted  with  the  concerns  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  ihe 
Diocese  of  Ohio — an  institution  founded  by  the  benevolent  donations  of 
pious  men  and  women,  for  the  education  of  ministers  of  the  Gospel, — un- 
der the  presidency  of  a  Bishop  of  the  church, — who  is  at  the  same  time 
the  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity  and  Pastoral  Divinity  in  that  school 
of  the  Prophets.  "But  the  Bishop,"  you  will  say,  "must  have  been  wholly 
unaware  of  these  proceedina:s."  No!  I  am  sorry  to  say  he  was  not.  The 
pamphlet  was  written  in  Philadelphia  during  the  session  of  the  General 
Convention,  ostensibly  hy  three  of  the  trustees,  assuming  to  speak  in  behalf 
of  their  fellows,  and  unquestionably  with  the  aid  and  countenance  of  the 
Bishop.  He  is  known  to  have  overlooked  and  corrected  the  proofs.  Four- 
fifths  of  all  the  matter  must  needs  have  been  furnished  by  him;  and  the  di- 
alectics— ex  unguine  leonem — it  would  be  a  moral  absurdity  to  look  for 
the  authorship  of  them,  to  any  other  person  connected  with  the  publica- 
tion.* 

•  The  Rev.  Mr.  Smallwood  is  an  ungradiiated  clergyman,  recently  reward- 
ed with  the  honorary  degree  of  M.A.,  by  the  (President  and  ?)  Faculty  of 
Kenyon  College.  Mr.  Rogers  is  a  store-keeper  at  Mount  Vernon,  and  Mr. 
Reynolds,  a  forwarding  merchant  at  Masillon.  The  last  two  had  been  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Trustees  only  about  five  months,  and  never  but  once  in 
session  with  them  before  the  28th  February,  1844.  They  were,  besides,  al- 
most strangers  to  me  and  to  my  administration;  respectful  and  kind  in  their 


12 

You  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the  disparity  of  the  parties  in  this 
contest.  On  the  one  hand  you  see  the  principalities  and  powers  of  Gam - 
bier,  witli  all  the  accessories  of  high  official  station,  character,  and  influ- 
ence, and  a  skill  and  subtlety  in  the  use  of  words,  seldom,  if  ever  sur- 
passed. You  see  them,  confederated  (in  ihis  case)  by  a  community  of 
interest,  zealously  sustaining  each  other  in  the  effort  to  crush  an  humble 
individual,  whom,  having  once  grossly  injured,  they  cannot  foigive.  On 
the  other,  you  behold  that  individual,  standing  alone,  with  no  pretence  or 
ground  of  confidence  but  in  the  righteousness  of  his  cause,  striving,  as 
he  may,  against  such  odds,  in  delence  of  his  name,  his  character,  his 
means  of  support,  and  his  capacity  for  usefulness.  The  disparity  is  fear- 
ful ;  and  I  am  not  surprised  that  some  of  my  kind  friends  should  have 
been  alirmed  for  me,  when  my  enemies,  breathing  out  ihrealenings,  and 
scarcely  concealing  their  unscrupulousness  as  to  nuians,  seem  already  to 
exult  in  the  certainty  of  my  destruction.  But  there  is  no  alternative.  If 
the  disparity  was  even  a  thousand  fold  greater  than  it  is,  I  could  not,  with- 
out a  moral  dereliction,  recede  from  the  contest.  The  interests  for  which 
I  am  engaged,  God  has  made  it  my  duty,  in  a  right  spirit,  to  defend;  and 
I  humbly  trust  that  he  will  enable  me  so  to  defend  them  while  life  lasts. 
I  am  no  lover  of  controversy.  No  one,  better  than  yourself,  knows  how 
repugnant  it  is  to  every  instinct  and  feeling  of  my  nature.  I  take  it  as  I 
take  medicine,  only  when  I  must,  and  then  with  loathing.  But  in  the 
present  instance  it  has  been  forced  upon  me  by  the  intolerable  aggression 
of  these  men  ;  and  so  long  as  they  go  on,  adding  wrong  to  wrong,  the 
option  to  continue  or  discontinue  it  is  not  with  me.     I  am  the  defendant. 

Some  of  the  partisans  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine  have  endeavored  to  raise  a 
presumption  against  me,  on  the  ground  that  my  statements  are  ex  parte. 
But  what  is  the  meaning  of  that  phrase  in  this  connection  ?  Every  ap- 
peal against  personal  injustice  or  violence,  is  more  or  less  ex  parte.  If 
you  expose,  as  it  may  be  your  bounden  duty  to  do,  an  attempt  upon  your 
life  or  property,  your  complaint  has  necessarily  this  character.  The  out- 
cry of  murder!  or  a  call  for  help!  from  the  victim  of  lawless  power  or  un- 
bridled passion,  is  ex  parte, — but  is  it  therefore  to  be  unheeded,  or  is  the 
complaint  of  any  injured  one  to  be  ruled  out  of  court,  as  unworthy  of  no- 
tice on  that  ground  .''  This  would  be  a  precious  immunity,  indeed,  on  the 
side  of  aggression.  But  even  this  is  not  the  whole  ol  what  seems  to  be 
claimed  in  the  present  case.  The  complaint  of  the  single-handed  victim 
is  to  be  debarred  a  hearing,  while  the  adverse  statements  of  the  confede- 
rated aggressors,  no  matter  how  vituperative  and  slanderous,  are  to  be  re- 
ceived on  their  own  mutual  endorsement,  with  full  and  unhesitating  con- 
fidence, as  if  any  principle  in  human  character  was  more  determined  or 
more  relentless  than  that  which  prompts  an  overbearing  and  high  handed 
oppressor  to  justify  his  wrong  doing. 

Another,  more  imposing  presumption  has  been  urged,  on  the  ground 
that  my  Statement  involves  an  impeachment  of  the  conduct  and  character 
of  Bishop  Mcllvaine;  and  the  authors  of  the  "Reply,"  well  aware  of  the 
advantage  which  this  view  of  the  case  would  be  likely  to  give  them  in  an 
appeal  to  the  popular  mind,  have  artfully  contrived  to  shift  the  whole  con- 
troversy lo  [h\s  ground.  "The  manifest  object  of  the  pamuhlet,"  pay 
they  in  their  card,  "is  to  lay  all  the  responsibility  of  that  act  (my  dis- 
missal) upon  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  to  injure  his  character, 
&c."  "  So  far  as  Bishop  Mcllvaine  is  concerned,  (Reply  p.  5)  this  ef 
fort  to  injure  him  must  fall  to  the  ground  and  recoil  upon  the  author  of  it, 
ifitcanbc  shown,"  &c.     "The  base  ingratitude  and  injustice  of  the 

personal  intercourse  with  me,  (until  the  present  action,)  and  the  last  named 
even  made  a  point  of  expressing,  with  tears,  his  strong  regard  for  me,  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  Board. 


13 

Bishop  is  the  main  string  on  which  all  the  harping  of  his  pantplilet 
strikes."  The  morale  of  this  double  artifice  is  of  a  piece  with  the  exam- 
ples already  given;  I  pass  it  in  that  aspect,  without  further  notice,  and 
proceed,  at  once,  to  examine  its  logical  relations  to  the  real  matter  in 
hand.     And  first,  as  a  false  issue. 

If  you  turn  to  my  Statement,  you  will  see  that  more  than  half  of  it,  (18 
pages  in  the  first  edition,  and  16  in  the  last,)  is  occupied  with  an  account 
of  th 'J  corporate  proceedings  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  in  the  matter  of 
my  removal,  and  an  exhibition  of  the  essential  injustice  of  the  act,  in 
form  and  substance.  This  exhibit  is  fundamental  to  all  the  subsequent 
discussions,  and  is  to  be  taken  therefore  as  the  primary  aim  and  object 
of  my  publication.  The  remainder  is  taken  up  with  statements  explana- 
tory of  the  circumstances,  under  which  1  became  cotmected  with,  and 
"  held  office  in  the  institution,"  having  in  view  to  illustrate  the  motives 
and  agency,  which,  (there  was  some  reason  to  believe,)  had  operated  in 
effecting  my  removal.  Bishop  Mcllvaine  is  certainly  and  of  necessity 
implicated,  in  these  statements, — he  is  almost  as  much  so,  in  his  own 
version  of  the  matter,  as  in  mine, — but  what  does  it  signify  ?  The  ques- 
tion whether  hk  did  or  did  not  take  an  influential  partintiie  proceedings, 
is  entirely  incidental,  and  of  no  manner  of  consequence  to  the  main  alle- 
gation. It  may  be  proved  either  way,  without  taking  a  feather's  weight 
from  the  enormity  of  that  injustice,  which,  1  declared  frankly  beforehand, 
and  still  declare,  I  will  never  cease  to  denounce. 

But  I  may  go  further  on  this  point,  and  I  ask  you  to  open  my  pamphlet 
and  verify  what  1  say.  I  have  not  been  moved  by  any  undue  desire  to 
make  out  a  case  against  Bishop  Mcllvaine.  What  I  might  have  done, 
had  I  been  so  minded,  it  is  not  now  needful  to  say.  It  is  sufficient  that 
my  course  would  have  been  a  different  one — a  very  different  one.  As  it 
was,  I  confined  myself  to  the  exhibition  of  facts  bearing  directly  upon 
the  subject  matter  of  my  removal;  and  which,  however  roundly  denied 
by  my  adversaries,  I  am  prepared  to  substantiate  in  all  their  essential 
particulars  by  legal  testimony.  These  facts  I  exhibited  in  a  calm  and 
temperate  manner;  far  from  endeavoring  to  enhance  their  weight  or  im- 
pressiveness  by  any  rhetoric  of  mine,  1  even  abstained  from  drawing 
formal  conclusions,  when  I  might  easily  have  done  so — leaving  the  mind 
of  the  reader,  in  this  respect,  perfectly  free.  Have  my  adversaries  been 
equally  dispassionate  } 

In  the  same  spirit  I  made  my  quotations  from  the  Bishop's  letters. 
The  correspondence  on  his  part  was  no  light  matter;  it  extended  in  time, 
over  a  period  of  more  than  sixteen  yeai-s,  and  in  volume  to  near  a  hundred 
sheets,  embracing  a  variety  of  topics,  and  written  with  the  freedom  and 
unreservedness  of  the  most  entire  confidence.  And  what  have  I  quoted.-' 
Nothing  but  his  propositions  and  persuasions  (^demi  official)  to  induce  my 
removal  to  Gambier,  and  a  few — a  very  few,  out  of  a  vast  number — of 
his  professions  of  friendship  ard  confidence,  (o  show  the  nature  of  our 
personal  relations.  Neither  one  nor  the  other  could  be  considered  confi- 
dential; nor  could  either,  in  itself,  have  the  slightest  effect  to  injure  his 
character.  They  were  rather  honorable;  unless  it  should  turn  out  in 
a  comparison  of  those  professions  with  his  subsequent  conduct,  that  his 
pledges  had  been  violated,  and  his  faith  broken  :  But  even  that  inference, 
like  the  others,  I  left  to  the  unbiassed  conclusions  of  the  reader. 

Secondly:  as  to  the  presumption  against  my  "statement"  on  the 
ground  that  it  impeaches  the  character  and  conduct  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 
This  is  a  point  of  some  importance.  Almost  every  page  of  the  "  Reply" 
is  drawn  up  in  some  dependence,  more  or  less,  upon  this  presumption  ; 
but  of  course  it  could  not  be  stated  as  fully  and  explicitly  under  the  proq/" 
reading  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine  himself,  as  it  has  since  been  in  certain  re- 


14 

ligious  newspapers.  The  amount  of  it,  as  there  insisted  upon,  appears  to 
be  that  so  eminent  and  holy  a  Bishop,  full  of  zeal  and  eloquence,  more 
than  ordinarily  spiritual  in  his  views,  and,  above  all,  the  champion  of 
doctrinal  purity  in  opposition  to  the  errors  of  a  corrupt  and  schismatic 
church,  is  not  to  be  held  capable  of  doing  wrong,  or  subject  to  a  charge  of 
wrong;  doing  on  any  evidence;  and  such  is  the  import  of  the  etiquette  as- 
sumed by  the  Bishop  in  the  matter  of  my  accounts.  (Reply,  p.  24.)  Was 
it  for  the  order  of  Bishops  in  general  that  this  immunity  was  claimed,  or 
for  Bishop  Mcllvaine  in  particular  ?  Recent  events  answer — beyond  the 
possibility  of  being  misunderstood — the  latter;  and  we  have  then  this  cu- 
rious anomaly;  a  man  in  this  republican  country — in  the  19th  century — 
ready  to  die  in  the  last  ditch  of  a  dogmatic  controversy  with  Papal  Rome* 
— broadly  and  boldly  appropriating  one  of  the  most  arrogant  pretensions 
of  the  most  corrupt  period  of  that  very  Rome — pontifical  infallibility. f 

As  to  the  fair  and  proper  presumption  in  favor  of  character,  God  for- 
bid that  I  should  trespass  upon  it  in  the  slightest  particular.  It  is  of  all 
personal  rights  that  which  I  hold  most  precious,  and  as  I  claim  it  for  my- 
self, I  freely  and  fully  concede  it  to  all  others.  But  how  is  it  to  be  de- 
fined ?  Does  it  give  impunity  to  wrong  doing  ?  Does  it  lake  away  the 
accountability  of  men  .^  By  no  means.  It  simply  secures  to  every  man, 
high  and  low,  the  most  humble  as  well  as  the  most  dignified,  the  right  to 
be  held  blameless  in  reputation  and  character  till  fairly  impeached  on  good 
and  sufficient  evidence.  I  do  not  deny  that  great  consideration  is  due  to 
established  reputation  and  tried  worth.  I  yield  to  no  one  in  my  respect 
for  the  sacredness  of  ministerial  and  episcopal  character,  and  I  admit 
that  more  decisive  (external)  evidence  (much  more  decisive)  is  requi- 
site for  an  impeachment  in  many  cases.  But  this  is  founded  upon  a  rule  of 
evidence,  not  upon  the  presumption  anterior  to  evidence.  And  now  let 
us  apply  these  principles  to  the  case  in  question. 

Five  days  after  my  dismissal,  while  I  was  yet  bleeding  under  the  sense 
of  that  outrage,  meditating  in  what  terms  I  should  answer  Bishop  Mc- 
Ilvaine's  letter  of  condolence,  several  of  the  students  waited  upon  me, 
(not  one,  as  the  Bishop  has  it,  but  several,')  voluntarily,  and  with  strong 
feelings  of  sympathy,  to  tell  me  that  my  character  had  been  terribly  as- 
sailed by  the  Bishop,  in  accounting  for  my  dismissal  to  the  students-X — 
"  How  can  that  be,"  I  said.  "  I  hav«  been  dismissed  for  unacceptable- 
ness  with  the  students  :  If  it  was  '  a  true  bill '  they  (the  students)  must 
have  been  conscious  of  it  without  any  argument  from  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 
But  of  course  he  confined  himself  lo  that  subject."  "No!  not  at  all.  He 
took  up  your  character  at  large — disparaged  you  in  every  thing  you  have 
done  for  the  college — remarked  very  freely  upon  your  circumstances  and 
conduct  before  you  came  to  Gambier — and  a  great  many  things  after- 

*  See  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  address  to  the  Convention  of  Ohio,  in  1844,  ag 
reported  in  the  papers  at  that  time. 

t  This  pretension  is  not  confined  to  the  publication  referred  to.  It  is  in  a 
much  stronger  sense  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  whole  system  at  Gambier. 
The  idea  is  that  the  ecclesiastical  power  reaches  and  inter-penetrates  every 
THING — from  the  highest  spirituality  to  the  lowest  secuiarity — on  the  Hill, 
and  that  its  rectitude,  in  any  application  the  Bishop  chooses,  is  not  to  be  even 
mooted.  This  was  precisely  the  issue  made  in  the  famous  interview  in  his 
study,  Oct.  1842,  of  which  I  shall  spep.k  again.  And  the  real  ground  upon 
which  he  put  an  end  to  our  correspondence. 

X  Two  of  the  classes — the  Sophmores  and  Seniors — visited  the  Bishop  on 
this  occasion  ;  the  former  at  the  instigation  of  some  of  the  beneficiaries — the 
"  Swi?8"  of  "  the  Hill" — and  the  latter  probably  on  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Lang,  who  belonged  to  it.  The  Freshmen  and  Juniors,  much  the  more  nume- 
rous, were  also  tampered  with,  but  refused  to  go. 


15 

wards  that  we  never  heard  of  before.  He  was  very  severe  upon  you,  and 
seemed  to  do  his  utmost  to  injure  your  character  in  every  respect."*  Such 
was  the  verbal  communication  at  the  time,  and  this  has  been  corrobora- 
ted in  writing  by  several  others  since.  Fifteen  days  after  this  informa- 
tion the  return  of  mails  brought  me  word  from  Brooklyn  that  the  same  at- 
tack upon  my  private  character  had  been  perpetrated  by  the  same  Right 
Rev.  individual,  in  letters  to  my  friends  there,  and  that  even  a  lady, great- 
ly honored  and  respected  by  me,  then  as  now,  had  been  so  far  swayed  as 
to  become  the  medium  of  these  communications.! 

Such  was,  in  general,  the  train  of  circumstances  which  led  to  the  pub- 
lication of  my  Hrst  "statement,"  and  I  think  no  impartial  person  who 

•  A  sort  of  excuse  for  this  proceeding  is  pretended  in  the  '•'  Reply  "  on  the 
ground  that  the  subjects  treated  of  by  the  Bishop,  had  been  previously  intro- 
duced by  me  in  my  interviews  with  the  students  ;  and  it  is  affirmed  that  those 
interviews  were  sought  by  me  for  that  purpose.  Neither  position  is  true;  the 
interviews,  as  I  can  abundantly  prove,  were  not  sought  by  me  ;  very  few  of  the 
subjects  spoken  of  by  him  were  alluded  to  by  me  at  all ;  nothing  that  had  not 
a  direct  bearing  upon  the  theory  of  my  dismissal  ;  nor  was  a  word  uttered 
that  was  personally  disrespectful  to  him  (the  Bishop.) 

t  I  desire  to  refer  to  this  letter  with  the  utmost  possible  delicacy  so  far  as 
the  lady  to  whom  it  was  addressed  is  concerned.  I  have  never  impugned  the 
goodness  and  purity  of  her  intentions  in  communicating  it,  as  she  did,  to  se- 
veral persons,  according  to  the  request  of  the  writer  ;  nor  has  her  doing  so  in- 
terrupted, in  the  ilightest  degree,  the  cordiality  of  our  long  established  rela- 
tions, so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  But  I  will  not  dissemble  or  disguise  the  pro- 
found contempt  in  which  I  hold  the  taste  of  any  man  who  could  deliberately 
and  voluntarily  place  a  ladt  in  such  a  position.  The  letter  was  quoted  "/rom 
hearsay  "  as  the  Bishop  truly  remarks,  simply  because  there  was  no  other 
way  of  quoting  it.  My  friends  requested  leave  to  make  a  copy,  and  were  re- 
fused. I  wrote  to  the  Bishop  for  a  copy,  and  my  letter  was  return  unopened. 
But,  in  the  mean  time,  a  memorandum  of  all,  or  nearly  all  the  allegations  con- 
tained in  it,  was  carefully  made  by  one  of  the  persons  who  heard  it,  which  has 
since  been  attested  by  several  of  the  others  ;  and  this  is  now  in  my  possession. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  my  (returned)  letter  to  Bishop  M.  on  this  subject, 
dated  Glenville,  (Greenwich)  Conn.,  12th  August,  1844: 

Right  Rev.  Sir. — I  respectfully  ask  of  you  the  letter,  or  a  copy  of  the  letter 

addressed  by  you  to in  March  last,  containing  a  number  of  allegations 

touching  my  character  and  conduct  while  at  Gambler,  and  as  President  of 
Kenyon  College  ;  which  letter  I  understand  she  was  requested  to  communi- 
cate, and  did  communicate  to  sundry  persons  in  Brooklyn. 

Your  motives  for  making  a  lady  the  medium  of  this  communication,  I  will 
not  now  attempt  to  penetrate.  My  reasoning  upon  the  subject  will  depend 
somewhat  upon  your  willingness  or  unwillingness  to  comply  with  the  present 
request.  If  you  do  comply  I  shall  be  ready  to  admit  that,  whatever  other  mo- 
tive you  may  have  had,  you  were  not  actuated  by  fear  to  meet  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  allegations  referred  to  in  a  proper  manner  ;  for  I  give  you  dis- 
tmctly  to  understand  that  my  object,  in  asking  a  copy,  is  to  bring  you  to  that 
responsibility.  *  •  •  • 

(Another  letter  was  demanded  also,  but  the  demand  is  omitted  here  from 
the  desire  not,  at  present,  to  introduce  a  third  parly.  The  letter  then  pro- 
ceeds :) 

Perhaps  you  may,  in  replying,  lay  claim  to  a  reciprocal  right,  and  to  save 
time  I  answer  on  that  point  at  once.  As  the  assailed  party  in  this  business, 
and  acting  wholly  on  the  defensive,  I  claim  to  have  an  unconditional  moral 
right  to  the  letters  referred  to  ;  but  I  am  willing,  at  the  same  time,  and  shall 
hold  myself  ready  to  give  up,  as  I  am  ready  to  sustain  any  where  and  in  any 
manner,  whatever  I  have  said  or  written  on  this  subject.  I  shall  expect  an 
answer  to  both  these  requests  at  your  earliest  convenience.     I  am,  &c., 

D.  B  DOUGLASS. 

Right  Rev.  C.  P.  McIlvainb. 


16 

reads  that  document  carefully,  will  say  that  I  have  gone  aught  beyond  what 
those  circumstances  required.  Then  comes  the  "  Reply,"  void  of  any 
thing  like  argument  on  the  real  questions  at  issue,  but  filled,  from  begin- 
ning lo  end,  wiih  thrusts  at  my  private  and  professional  character,  which 
— whoever  may  have  been  the  penman — (1  will  not  descend  to  any  spe- 
cial pleading  on  that  point,)  Bishop  Mc/lvaine  only  could  have 
conceived.  Will  any  one  say  that  the  presumption  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking,  or  the  proper  etiquette  of  his  olficial  character,  ought  to  save 
him  from  the  responsibility  of  these  things  ?  Does  not  the  assumption  of 
that  etiquette  for  protection,  under  such  circumstances,  dishonor  and  de- 
grade the  sacred  function  to  which  he  appeals,  as  truly  as  it  aggravates 
the  wrong  for  which  he  thus  seeks  impunity  ? 

But  enough  of  these  preliminaries.  Let  us  come  more  particularly  to 
the  statements  and  facts  set  lorih  in  the  "  Reply  ;"  and  first  its  assertions 
as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  my  publishing  my  first  edition. 

Great  significancy  is  attached  to  the  delay  of  seven  months,  but  if  Bi- 
shop Mcllvaine  should  ever  be  the  subject  of  such  an  infliction  as  he  and 
his  colleagues  administered  to  me,  1  venture  to  say  that  he  will  find  it  a 
much  more  serious  matter  than  he  is  now  aware  of.  Many  months  would 
probably  elapse  before  he  could  collect  his  faculties  sufficiently  to  minis- 
ter to  any  thing  but  the  exigencies  of  himself  and  his  family.  *  * 
I  own  1  did  not  write  in  haste,  as  men  do  under  the  influence  of  passion, 
nor  do  I  mean  so  to  write  or  act  on  this  subject  at  any  time.  I  published 
as  soon  as  1  could  with  consistency;  without  any  calculation  of  effect,  but 
rather  in  the  belief  that  the  suggestions  of  policy  were  all  against  me  in 
delaying  so  long;  and  the  first  perfect  copy  1  could  procure  from  the  bind- 
er was  mailed  (o  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  in  time  to  have  been  received  three 
days  before  he  left  home. 

As  to  the  manner  of  circulating:  the  pamphlet  was  published,  as  it  pur- 
ported, for  private  circulation,  and  given  to  churchmen  only,  except  a 
few  personal  friends;  to  editors  of  secular  papers  only  one  or  two,  and 
those  churchmen.  It  was  left  at  no  book  store  or  publication  office,  ex- 
cept at  the  request  of  clergymen,  who  desired  to  receive  it  in  that  way. 
Finally,  as  to  the  imputation  of  having  written  or  circulated  my  "  state- 
ment" for  party  purposes,  1  utterly  disclaim  it.  If  1  know  myself  I 
wrote  and  only  wrote  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice,  and  there  are  those 
who  can  bear  me  witness  that  I  have  kept  studiously  aloof  from  all  party 
relations  whatever. 

The  first  attempt  of  the  Reply,  in  the  way  of  argument,  is  introduced 
(p.  5,)  with  a  passage  of  personal  history,  illustialive  of  the  weakness  of 
Bishop  McUvaine's  memory — a  fact  sufficiently  well  known,  but  ofwhich 
the  relevancy  is  not  very  apparent  It  seems  to  have  for  its  object  to  dispa- 
rage a  suggestion  of  mine, viz;  that  there  was  vsome  connection  betiveen  my 
removal  and  my  action  in  the  committee  of  the  Ohio  Convention,  (on  the 
Carey  ordination,)  on  the  ground  that  the  Bishop,  while  in  New-York, 
forgot  the  name  of  one  of  the  members  of  that  committee.  The  logic  is 
rather  foggy  in  any  application  of  it,  but  perfectly  foreign  as  to  the  mat- 
ter really  suggested  by  me^  If  you  turn  to  my  "  statement  "  (p.  34,)  you 
will  see  that  my  language  had  no  reference  to  Bishop  Mc/lvaine  what- 
ever. I  expressed  my  conviction  that  my  conduct,  "  on  that  occasion 
"  was  noted  by  one  at  least  of  my  constituency ,"  &c.  I  repeat 
that  conviction  now;  it  is  founded  upon  no  vague  surmise,  but  up- 
on the  certainty  that  within  a  very  short  time  after  the  Convention,  one 
of  that  constituency,  who  had  previously  been  one  of  the  loudest  in  his 
professions  of  affection  and  regard  to  me,  was  so  loud  in  detraction,  when 
speaking  of  me  to  third  parties,  that  a  humane  friend  thought  it  but  just 
and  proper  I  should  be  apprized  of  it.      It  was  not  Bishop  Mcllvaine 


17 

however,  nor  does  my  language  imply  that  it  was ;  yet  it  is  so  assumed  in 
the  "  Reply,"  for  the  sake  of  a  flouiishing;  page  of  disproof,  and  this  is 
offered  as  "  the  first  specimen  of  the  confidence  to  be  placed  in  my  so- 
lemn assertions." 

Another  like  "  specimen"  follows  on  page  6,  the  occasion  of  which  is 
thus  slated.  "  But  again  it  is  distinctly  asserted,  (p.  32)"  so  they  say, 
"  that  during  the  Bishop's  absence  in  the  east,  in  the  tall,  subsequent  to 
the  convention,  the  plot  went  on."  "  The  Bishop  was  actually,  at  this 
very  [ear/i/J  period,  (so  they  quote  me,)  arranging  with  his  confidential 
advisers  the  modus  operandi  of  the  impending  and  final  proceeding."  If 
now  you  turn  to  page  32  of  my  "statement"  you  will  find  that  the  thing 
which  they  here  say  is  "  distinctly  asserted"  is  not  asserted  at  all,  dis- 
tinctly or  otherwise.  It  is  assumed,  gratuitously,  by  my  adversaries.  I 
spoke  specifically,  of  the  period  after  the  Bishop's  return  from  New 
York.  'J'hey  falsify  n)y  language,  making  me  to  speak  of  the  time  of 
his  absence.  The  whole  case  is  of  their  own  making,  and  that  it  was  so 
made  deliberately  and  designedly  is  evident,  from  the  fact  that  they  had 
to  interpolate  the  word  "  early"  in  their  quotation  from  me,  to  make  it 
suit.  What  can  be  done  with  men  who  have  so  little  regard  for  truth  and 
fairness .'  What  can  we  think  of  the  Theological  Seminary,  whose  trust 
powers  are  thus  conscientiously  administered  .''  What  precious  lessons  in 
Ecclesiastical  Polity  must  not  the  young  Theologians  of  that  Seminary 
be  favored  withal,  under  such  teaching  ?     But  to  proceed  : 

The  Bishop  "  solemnly  declares  that  the  idea  of  Mr.  D's  removal  by 
an  act  of  Trustees,  or  of  any  proceeding  with  regard  to  him,  such  as  af- 
terwards occurred,  had  never  to  that  time  arisen  in  his  mind,  &c."  There 
are  several  specialities  in  the  language  of  this  declaration,  which,  irom 
such  a  dialectician,  entirely  destroys  its  efficacy  as  a  general  disclaimer. 
If  the  Bishop  really  meant  that  there  was  at  the  time  referred  to,  no  plot, 
no  scheme,  no  design  to  effect  my  removal,  which  is  the  thing  asserted  by 
me,  why  does  he  not  say  so  in  distinct  terras,  and  make  the  issue  on  that 
point  in  a  tangible  form  ?  I  affirmed  in  my  statement  (p.  33),  not 
that  "the  Bishop"  was  at  that  ''early"  period  "arranging  the  modus  ope- 
randi," &c.,  but  "  that  the  design  and  purpose  of  [my]  dismission  was 
distinctly  shadowed  forth,  and  spoken  of.  in  terms,  long  before  the  date  of 
the  Bishop's  return  from  New  York."  I  repeat  that  declaration  now;  and 
I  ask  the  Bishop,  if  he  joins  issue  with  me,  to  explain  how  it  was  that  his 
family  were  taking  so  lively  an  interest,  as  they  did  take,  in  my  private 
affairs  and  personal  character,  at  that  early  period  ?"  How  was  it,  that 
some  of  them  were  stationed  near  me,  on  particular  occasions,  to  catch 
my  words — any  words  uttered,  or  supposed  to  be  uttered — that  could  be 
made  available  for  the  purpose  of  defamation  ?*  How  was  it  that  inmates 
of  his  house,  at  the  same  early  period,  (early  in  the  fall,)  were  aware 
that  my  removal  was  contemplated  1  How  was  it,  that  some  of  his  chief 
managers  on  the  "  Hill,"  enjoying  his  full  confidence,  and  notoriously 
SUBORDINATE,  wcre  then  engaged  in  tampering  with  the  stiiden's,  and 
endeavoring  to  create  a  party  feeling  against  me  .''  How  was  it,  that  his 
own  son  was  constantly  in  the  College,  laboring  with  all  the  influence  in 
his  power  to  the  same  effjct  ?  And  finally,  when  the  notice  for  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Board  of  Trustees  appeared  in  the  Gambier  paper,  how  was  it 
that  the  same  person  was  enabled  to  say,  as  he  did  say,  (five  or  six  weeks 
before  the  time  of  their  meeting,)  that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
DISMISSING  President  Douglass?    These  things  are  susceptible 

*  A  memorable  instance  of  this  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  Bishop  Mc- 
Ilvaine,  in  September,  before  he  left  for  New  York,  and  then  made  the  sub- 
ject  of  a  remonstrance. 

3 


18 

of  LEGAL  PROOF, whenever  the  occasion  shall  be  offered,  and  then  what 
becomes  of  all  the  lUsclaimers  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  and  the  swag^ger  of 
Trustees  ? 

Perhaps  it  may  be  as  well  to  mention  here  at  once,  that  though  I  have 
regarded  Bishop  Mcllvaine  as  mainly  accountable  for  my  removal, — be- 
ing not  only  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  but  co-ordinate  with 
them, — and  without  whose  sanction,  (whatever  may  6e,)  in  point  of  fact, 
nothing  is  done  ;  being,  also,  the  person  who  negotiated  my  acceptance 
as  President,  (after  having  known  me  intimately  lor  fifteen  years,)  and 
who  should  have  known,  therefore,  all  the  obligations  expressed  or 
implied  in  thai  negotiation.  While  I  have  considered  him,  there- 
fore, as  mainly  responsible  in  the  matter  of  my  removal,  I  l)ave  not 
for  a  moment  supposed  that  he  was  the  sole  worker.  On  Ihe  contrary,  I 
have  constantly  had  in  view  the  reality,  known  and  felt  elsewhere,  as  well 
as  on  the  "Hill,"  that  there  is  a  clique,  a  cabal,  a  kitchen  cabinet  at 
Gambler,  embracing  also  a  part  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  under  some  of 
the  very  leaders,  who,  in  1839-'40,*  were  near  driving  the  Bishop  out  of 
the  Diocese,  but  who  noio,  under  a  coalition  of  interests,  of  which  1  shall 
speak  more  fully  by  and  by,  kindly  relieve  him  of  all  the  little  work  ne- 
cessary for  the  accomplishment  of  their  common  ends.f 

We  come  now  to  the  inception  of  the  actual  process  of  my  removal,  as 
set  forth  in  the  "  Reply."  "  After  the  Bishop  had  been  at  home  about 
"  three  weeks,  a  Professor  of  the  College  [he  tells  us]  drew  his  attention  to 
"  (he  declining  state  of  that  department  with  its  two  preparatory  schools," 
"&c.  *  *  *  "  Under  [this]  serious  suggestion,  the  Bishop  enquired 
"into  the  financial  stale  of  the  Institution,  and  found  that  while  all  the  nett 
"  income  from  fees  of  students  and  from  the  land  and  every  other  source, 
"with  the  exception  of  $400  taken  for  a  Theological  Professor,  was  ex- 
"  pended  upon  Ihe  support  of  the  officers  of  the  College,  those  of  the  Senior 
"Grammar  School  being  oflficers  of  the  College,  and  the  other  Grammar 
"  School  sustaining  its  own  expenses,  there  would  be  a  deficit  that  year  in 
"  the  salaries  of  College  officers  to  a  large  amount."  This  financial  dis- 
covery, you  will  please  to  remark  by  the  way,  was  the  only  ground  on 
which  the  Bishop  professes  to  have  acted,  and  the  use  of  similar  language, 
page  10,  shows  that  it  was  also  the  basis  o/"  all  that  was  done  by  the 
Board  of  Trustees.  "  The  object  of  the  meeting  was  in  no  way  com- 
"  municated  to  that  body,  [such  is  the  language,]  until  the  Treasurer  sent 
"  in  his  exhibit  of  the  state  of  (he  finances  of  the  Institution.  The  Bishop 
"  read  (o  them  thnt  document,  from  which  it  appeared  (hat  the  receipts  were 
"  expected  to  fall  alarmingly  short  of  expenses  that  year." 

The  phraseology  of  these  s(atements  is  deceptive  and  disingenuous.  It 
conveys  by  a  plausible  implication,  to  the  mind  of  the  uninitiated,  (he  idea 
that  the  College  was,  or  might  be  a  self-supporting  InstKution,  competent 
to  meet  its  own  salaries,  &c.  The  harping  about  an  "  alarming  deficit," 
"  a  new  debt  to  be  created,"  "  no  reserve  to  fall  back  upon,"  and  (he 
"  solemn  responsibili(y"  of  the  Bishop  and  his  Board  in  (he  premises,  is 
just  so  much  mere  declamation,  intended  evidently  as  an  appeal  (o  the 

•  Bishop  Chase  can  probably  sive  an  earlier  account  of  some  of  them. 
There  seems  to  have  beea  no  period  in  the  history  of  the  Institution,  when  it 
has  not  heen  under  the  control  of  a  back  stair  influence. 

t"  You  must  not  forget,"  said  a  friend,  writing  to  me  on  the  subject  of  my 
dismissal,  "  that  there  is  a  power  behind  the  throne  greater  thav  the 
THROVE."  "  I  do  not  forget  that  there  is  such  a  power,"  I  replied,  "  but  I 
cannot  believe  that  it  is  the  greater.  It  is  there  because  the  Bishop  wishes  it 
there,  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes,  and  need  not  have  been  there 
unless  he  had  willed  it. 


19 

business  mind  of  the  community,  to  which,  the  writer  well  knew,  such 
ideas  were  peculiarly  odious  ;  and  all  this,  it  is  intimated,  was  the  pecu- 
liar circumstance  of  "  that  year,"  the  regular  consequence  of  my 

ADMINISTRATION. 

If  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  were  in  Court,  (and  the  current 
books  of  the  office  forthcoming,)  it  would  be  seen  that  there  never  was  a 
time,  since  1832,  the  year  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  consecration,  when  the 
Board  were  nof  embarrassed — "  alarmingly"  embarras-ed — with  deficits; 
and  generally  by  a  much  larger  amount,  in  the  College  alone,  than  could 
have  been  anticipated  for  the  year  1843—4.  By  a  Report  of  the  Treasurer, 
entered  on  the  minutes  in  Nov.  1835,  (an  abstract  of  which  is  now  before 
me,')  it  appears  ihat  the  total  receipts  of  the  College,  inlcuding  room 
rents,  must  have  been  from  $3,000  lo  $3,500  less  than  the  aggregate  of 
salaries  and  other  current  expenses  for  that  year — the  state  of  the 
College  being  about  the  same  as  in  1843; — and  that  after  all  the  profits 
of  the  two  Grammar  Schools,  (containing  at  that  time  120  pupils,)  weie 
swallowed  up  in  this  deficit,  there  was  still  a  deficit  of  some  $1,500, 
against  the  Institution.  The  truth  is  that  the  College  not  only  never  did 
bear  its  own  expenses,  but  never  was  expected  to  bear  them.  Any  one  at 
all  conversant  with  Colleges,  would  see  at  once  thai  the  idea  of  its  doing 
so  was  absurd;  and  so  Bishop  McUvaine  evidently  thought  when  he  wrote 
his  appeal  in  behalf  of  the  Institution,  in  June  1843: — "No  College  (he 
says,)  can  hold  its  proper  stand,  and  rely  merely  on  the  fees  of  students. 
Especially  cannot  this  be  done  in  a  new  country.  Eastern  Colleges  have 
large  endowments  or  annual  grants  from  the  States  for  the  support  of  in- 
structors.* We  have  nothing  but  our  land.  You  see  then,  that  the  sale 
of  our  land  would  be  the  death  of  the  Institution."  Such  is  his  language, 
and  the  whole  appeal  is  based  upon  the  i)rinciple,  that  without  a  land  re- 
venue, the  College  could  not  exist. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  said, — for  this  is  also  implied  in  the  language  of 
the  "  Reply," — that  the  deficit  of  "  that  year"  must  have  been  unreason- 
ably large,  since  it  swallowed  up,  not  only  all  the  profits  of  the  Grammar 
Schools,  but  the  land  revenue  also.  Whether  it  was  unreasonably  large 
or  not,  is  a  simple  question  to  be  determined  by  comparison  with  other 
years.  That  it  absorbed  all  the  profits  of  the  Grammar  Schools  and  the 
rents  besides, — (if  it  did  so,) — might  arise  from  the  falling  off'  of  those 
profits,  or  of  the  rents,  either  or  both,  and  then  the  responsibility  would 
be  on  the  proper  heads  of  those  Seminaries,  or  on  the  "  Prudenti  1  Com- 
mittee;" but  in  no  case  upon  me.  I  shall  take  leave  to  examine  all  these 
questions  in  order. 

First,  as  to  whether  the  deficit  of  that  year  was  unreasonably  large  ? 

There  were  in  the  College  classes  at  the  epoch  of  my  removal,  40  stu- 
dentsf  The  regular  receipt  from  these  would  be  $1,800;  and  as  the  ag- 
gregate of  salaries  and  current  expenses,  (see  .Journal  of  Convention  for 
1843,  page  35,)  was  $4,040,  the  difference  to  be  provided  for  by  other 
means,  was  for  that  year,  $2,240.  Had  the  same  calculation  been  made 
the  year  before,  or  three  years  before — about  the  time  of  my  arrival  on 
"  the  Hill" — the  deficit  in  either  case,  would  have  been  from  $100  to  $200 

•  Instances  are  known  of  Colleges  enjoying  a  much  larger  patronage  than 
Kenyon  College  has  ever  enjoyed,  which  receive  from  grants  and  other  extra- 
neous resources,  from  $5,000  lo  $10,000  per  annum,  and  could  not  he  sustain- 
ed otherwise;  yet  this  circumstance  is  not  deemed  invidious,  or  in  any  way 
a  reflection  upon  the  judicious  and  prudent  management  of  those  Institutions. 

t  There  were  always  some  Clergymen's  sons  &c.,  who  did  not  pay.  But 
as  these  are  not  considered  in  the  calculations  of  the  "  Reply."  it  is  but  just, 
in  making  comparisons,  that  they  should  not  be  considered  here. 


20 

more ;  and  in  1835,  with  about  the  same  number  of  students,  it  was  as 
heretofore  stated,  (from  $3,000  to  $3,500,)  at  least  $1,000  more.  It  ap- 
pears then,  from  these  comparisons,  that  the  deficiency  which  excited 
such  serious  alarm  in  the  mind  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  and  rendered  it  ne- 
cessary to  call  together  the  Board  of  Trustees;  which  became  the  ground 
of  such  grave  deliberation  and  action  on  their  pari,  and  which  is  charged 
so  inviduously  (page  15,)  to  my  particular  administration,  was  in  reality 
— as  to  the  College — no  deficit  at  all.  It  was  rather  a  surplussage, 
being  in  fact  from  $100  to  $1,000  less  than  the  corresponding  deficiency 
in  other  years.  The  real  deticit  then,  must  have  been  either  in  the  Gram- 
mar Schools,  or  in  the  land  revenue;  and  therefore 

Secondly,  as  to  the  Grammar  Schools. 

On  this  subject  you  will  find  a  statement  in  the  "Reply,"  (p.  15,)  to 
which  I  beg  your  particular  attention.     It  is  as  follows: 

"  Milnor  Hall,  when  Mr.  D.  took  charge,  (we  take  his  own  statement, 
"p.  15,  without  vouching  for  its  accuracy,)  had  fifty-four  pupils.  It 
"  therefore  yielded  by  tuition,  more  than  $900  for  tlie  salary  of  Mr.  D. 
"  and  the  other  College  officers.  The  other  school  he  says  had  forty-two 
*'  when  he  took  charge.  Thus  it  produced  in  fees  for  tuition  $1,260,  all 
"  of  which,  as  its  instructors  were  College  officers,  was  available  for  their 
"salaries — so  that  when  Mr.  D.  went  to  Gambier,  these  two  schools 
"  yielded  an  income  of  at  least  $2,160." 

"  Now  what,  according  to  his  statement,  was  their  reduced  state  when 
"  he  was  removed  }  By  his  own  account  the  pupils  in  the  Senior  Gram- 
"  mar  School  had  been  reduced  to  eleven,  diminishing  the  income  from 
"  that  source  from  $1260  to  $330;  and  those  in  Milnor  Hall  had  declined 
"  to  twenty-seven  ;  so  that  instead  of  yielding  a  nett  income  of  $900  to 
"  the  college  deficit,  it  only  met  its  own  expenses.  Thus,  according  to 
"  Mr.  D.'s  statement,  the  falling  off  in  the  Grammar  Schools  at  the  time 
"  of  his  removal,  had  diminished  the  means  of  meeting  expenses  by  at 
"least  $1830." 

These  calculations,  you  will  observe,  are  based  with  great  emphasis 
upon  my  "  statements."  But  if  you  will  turn  to  the  page  (15)  to  which 
reference  is  made,  you  will  see  that  /am  not  at  all  accountable  for  ihem. 
I  made  no  statements,  whatever,  of  the  kind  quoted.  I  never  said  that 
"Milnor  Hall  had  fifty  four  pupils  when  I  took  charge."  I  never  said 
that  I  took  charge  of  it  at  all  ;  under  any  circumstances  it  would  have 
been  a  falsehood.  I  never  said  that  "the  other  school  had  forty-two  when 
I  took  charge,"  or  that  I  "  took  charge"  of  that  any  more  than  of  Mil- 
nor Hall  ; — it  would  have  been  equally  untrue.*     In  all  these  particulars 

•  My  language  in  the  passage  referred  to — (part  of  my  address  to  the  Trus- 
tees, pending  their  proceedings  against  me) — was  as  follows:  "  The  falling 
off  in  numbers  is  not  in  the  College  classes,  but  in  the  Grammar  Schools.  The 
effective  number  in  these  classes  when  I  came  here,  was  thirty  seven  ;  it  is 
now  thirty-nine  (40),  and  has  not  materially  varied  from  that  number  in  all 
the  intermediate  time.  In  the  Senior  Grammar  School,  however,  there  has 
been  a  dttninution  from  forty  two,  year  before  last,  to  twenty  four  last  year, 
and  eleven  now.  So  also  in  the  Junior  Grammar  school,  from  fifty  four  last 
year  to  twenty-seven  or  eight  now.  But  what  is  that  to  me  ?  I  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  internal  affairs  of  those  schools  ;  I  took  no  credit  for  their  in- 
crease, and  I  protest  against  being  held  in  any  way  responsible  for  their  de- 
crease. The  real  causes  I  apprehend  in  both  cases,  were  very  easily  ascer- 
tained, if  that  had  been  the  object  of  your  committee." 

My  object  in  this  language  was  plainly  to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  hypo- 
thesis, which  made  me  responsible  for  the  diminution  in  Ihe  Grammar  schools 
with  which  I  had  only  a  very  remote  connection, — when  in  the  college  with 
which  I  was  immediately  and  responsibly  connected,  there  had  been  no  ma- 
terial change.    I  was  desirous,  also,  to  excite  the  Trustees,  if  there  was  a 


21 

the  quotation  is  false;  and  as  the  variation  is  palpable,  and  the  numbers 
were  so  easily  corrected,  if  truth  had  been  the  aim  of  the  writer, — mere- 
ly by  opening  the  College  catalogue  for  1840-41, — and  as  the  taking 
"  charge"  is  evidently  thrown  in  with  an  artful  and  insidious  design  to 
pervert  truth  in  other  respects, — it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion, 
that  the  falsehood  was  wilful  and  malicious.  Mark  now  how  plain  a  tale 
shall  put  it  all  down. 

As  to  ihe  falling  off:  the  Senior  Grammar  School  had,  when  I  went  to 
Gambier,  seventeen  pupils.  Sixteen  mouths  afterwards,  in  the  summer  of 
1842,  the  number  had  increased  to  forty-two  ;  but  wanting  the  care  and 
attention  of  a  zealous  and  efficient  Principal,  its  most  important  recita- 
tions (those  of  Professor  Sandells)  being  sometimes  omitted  for  nearly 
a  week  together,  and  no  effort  made  to  give  it  unity  and  character  as  a 
Seminary,  it  gradually  lost  interest  and  dwindled  down,  from  sheer  want 
of  cultivation,  to  twelve,  (I  said  eleven,  but  it  should  have  been  twelve,) 
at  the  diile  of  my  removal.  There  was  in  that  Institution,  therefore,  a 
falling  off  of^^ye,  (from  seventeen  to  twelve),  during  my  official  residence 
on  "  the  Hifl,"  making  a  diminulion  of  $227  (instead  of  $1260)  in  its 
receipts.  In  Milnor  Hall,  the  number  of  pupils  when  I  went  to  Gambier, 
was  thirty.  In  two  years  it  increa«edto  fifty-four;  but  Irom  that  time  to 
the  date  of  my  removal,  it  fell  off  again,  (not  from  the  neglect  and  inat- 
tention of  its  principals,  as  in  the  former  case,  but  from  essential  defects 
in  the  modes  of  instiuction),  to  its  original  number,  about  thirty.  So 
that  its  receipts  were  not,  from  first  to  last,  materially  altered.  And  now 
let  us  sum  up  the  whole  of  this  matter.  In  the  College  there  was  an  incre- 
ment of  two  :  in  the  Senior  Grammar  School,  the  falling  off  (from  forty- 
two  to  eleven,  as  they  have  it)  settles  down  to  five  :  winle  in  the  Junior 
Grammar  School  (Milnor  Hall)  there  was  no  mafma/ tjana/jon.  The 
aggregate  falling  off,  in  all  the  Institution  then,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  my  incumbency  as  President  of  the  College,  was  three,  as  to 
the  number  of  pupils  !  and  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  dollars,  (instead 
of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty)  as  to  the  amount  of  receipts  !  Some- 
what of  an  error.  Typographical,  think  you  .'  Bishop  Mcllvaine  read 
the  proof ! 

But  there  is  a  climax  of  disingenuousness,  even,  if  possible,  beyond 
this,  in  the  renewed  attempt  to  make  me  responsible  for  the  sins  of  the 
Grammar  Schools.  This  is  evidently  a  mortal  effort  with  them,  and  page 
after  page  of  the  *'  Reply"  is  garnished  with  asseverations  and  arguments 
or  verbiage  intended  for  argument,  to  make  it  out.  I  am  sick  of  fer- 
reting out  these  dishonest  fallacies,  but  this  is  a  point  of  .some  impor- 
tance, and  must  not  be  passed  over.  They  say  that  I  was  responsible  for 
these  .schools. 

First.  Because  the  profits  arising  from  them  went  (o  pay  the  salaries 
of  the  College  officers,  ^ns.  So  did  the  profits  of  the  lands.  Was  I 
responsible  for  theml  The  Prudential  committee,  I  apprehend,  would 
have  had  something  to  say  on  that  subject. 

Secondly.  Because  the  Principals  were  members  of  the  College  Facul- 
ty, jfns.  They  were  also  members  of  the  Education  Committee,  and 
might  have  been  members  of  a  dozen  organic  bodies  besides.  Would 
that  circumstance  have  transferred,  frmi"  them,  to  the  heads  of  those 
bodies,  any  pari  of  their  proper  responsibility  as  Principals  of  their  res- 
pective Schools  ? 

Thirdly.  Because  in  one  of  them  (the  Senior  Grammar  school,)  a  Pro- 
fessor was  the  Principal,  and  tutors  g^ve  instruction.     J/ns.  The  same 

particle  of  truth  or  justice  in  them,  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  the  real  causes 
of  the  former.     But  it  was  of  no  avail. 


22 

Professor  was  also  a  Preacher,  and  an  instructor  in  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary. Were  these  departments  "  as  much  connected  with  the  President 
as  any  department  of  duty  of  the  same  professor  ?"  And  why  not,  if  the 
principle  is  sound  ? 

Fourthly.  Because,  in  the  same  school  the  students  live  in  the  College 
edifice.  2lns.  Their  living  there  is  purely  and  professedly  incidental. 
Circumstances  might  render  it  necessary  for  Theological  students  to  live 
there  in  the  same  way.  Would  the  President's  responsibilities,  in  that 
case,  extend  to  the  Theological  Seminary  ? 

Fifthly.  Because  the  Schools  are  dependant  upon  the  reputation  of  the 
College,  j^ns.  So  are  the  tailors,  and  shoemakers,  and  trades-people  of 
"the  Hill,"— and  what  of  it? 

Sixthly.  Because  "  not  only  the  existence,  but  much  of  the  charac- 
ter and  attainment  of  the  College,  depend  on  them"  (the  schools.)  jins. 
There  were  many  things  upon  which  the  well-being,  and  even  the  exist- 
ence of  the  College  depends,  over  which  /had  no  control,  and  for  which 
I  was  not  in  the  least  responsible.  Its  resourcos  might  be  wasted,  its 
property  alienated,  or  its  standard  of  discipline  or  scholarship  fatally  de- 
based, by  the  mismanagement  of  an  ignorant  Board  of  Trustees.  What 
power  had  I  to  prevent  it  ?  There  were  always  abuses  and  nuisances  on 
"the  Hill,"  which  I  had  no  power  to  reach  authoritatively,  however 
much  I  might  use  my  personal  influence  to  restrain  or  correct  them;  as  I 
used  that  influence  to  correct  evils  in  the  two  Grammar  schools. 

Seventhly.  Because  these  schools  were  "  important  nurseries"  for  the 
College,  and  furnished  a  large  proportion  of  its  pupils  ;  and  "as  pupils 
were  sent  to  (^them)  expressly  to  be  prepared  for  the  college,"  parents 
would  not  so  send  them  if  the  College  was  in  bad  repute,  jfns.  Was  I 
responsible  for  all  the  nurseries  in  which  pupils  were,  or  might  be  reared 
for  Keny on  College?  That  would  be  a  large  responsibility,  truly.  Eve- 
ry grammar  school  in  the  country,  while  open  for  students  at  large,  is 
also,  potentially,  a  nursery  for  Kenyon  College  ;  and  this  was  precisely 
the  case  in  regard  to  those  at  Gambler.  The  Senior  Grammar  School 
was  "an  Academy,  or  High  School,  [see  Catalogue  just  published]  de- 
signed for  the  accommodation  of  young  men  who  may  wish  to  obtain  a 
thorough  English  education,  pursue  a  partial  classical  course,  or  be  pre- 
pared for  admission  info  the  Freshmen  class  of  the  College."  It  had  in  its 
best  state,  twice  as  many  general  pupils  as  candidates  for  College  ;  and 
could  have  had,  under  good  management,  a  much  larger  proportion.  So 
far  from  pupils  being  placed  there  "  expressly  to  prepare  for  College," 
parents  much  more  frequently  placed  them  there  under  a  popular  bias 
against  College  education  altogether,  and  were  only  induced  to  allow 
them  to  prepare  for' College  by  great  persuasion  afterwards.*  Milnor 
Hall,  in  like  manner,  was  "  an  Institute  of  Elementary  and  Classical  In- 
struction," (see  Catalogue)  where  "  Reading,  Orthography,  and  Pen- 
manship" were  taught  to  boys  (from  10  to  15  years  old),  as  well  as  "the 
studies  required  for  admission  to  the  Freshmen  class  of  Kenyon  College, 
and  s«c/i  others  as  are  usually  taught  in  common  j^cademics."  This  In- 
stitution furnished,  in  1841,  seven  candidates  for  the  Freshmen  class,  not 
one  of  whom,  however,  was  able  to  proceed  with  the  class  in  which  he 
entered.  In  1842,  having  about  forty  pupils,  it  furnished  not  a  single 
candidate;  and  only /^ree  out  of  fifty -four  pupils  in  1843;  making  an 
average  of  one  qualified  candidate,  out  of  an  average  of  forty-one  boys, 
per  annum.  So  much  for  the  assertion  that  pupils  were  sent  there  ex- 
pressly to  be  prepared  for  College. 

"  I  have  a  volume  of  correspondence  on  this  subject,  with  parents  who 
committed  their  sons  to  my  care. 


23 

Eighthly.  Because  such  was  the  "  previous  practice," — these  depart- 
ment having  "  always  been  as  much  under  the  direction  of  that  body, 
(the  College  Faculty)  and  consequently  under  its  President,  as  the  Col- 
lege, in  every  thing  but  very  minute  and  subordinate  details  "  Answer. 
There  was  not  and  could  not  have  been  any  "  previous  practice"  on  the 
subject  ;  I  went  to  Gambier  under  "  a  new  organization,  provided  for  by 
changes  in  the  constitution  of  the  Theological  Seminary,"  (see  Bishop 
Mcllvdine's  address  to  the  Convention  of  1841),  by  which  new  offices, 
new  duties,  and  new  relations,  were  created  in  all  parts  of  the  Institution. 
Whatever  subordination  the  Grammar  schools  may  have  had  to  the  present 
Faculty,  they  were  not  the  less  organized  inslilulions  under  their  own  proper 
and  responsible  heads,  nor  did  the  Faculty  ever  in  a  single  instance 
overlook  that  circumstance,  by  the  slightest  attempt  to  exercise  a  control 
over  the  interior  management  of  either.  When  they  appointed  examina- 
tions, it  was  as  a  conservative  visitorial  body,  and  at  Milnor  Hall  in 
particular,  they  were,  on  such  occasions,  always  regarded  and  treated 
as  the  guests  for  the  time  being,  of  that  Institution.  The  assertion, 
therefore,  that  these  schools  were,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  College,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Faculty,  is  simply  false.  But  even  if  it  had  been 
true,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  President  was  individually  respon- 
sible for  the  acts  of  the  body. 

Ninthly.  It  is  said  that  "  the  doctrine  that  the  President  of  the  College 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Grammar  schools,  was 
as  new  to  the  Trustees  as  it  was  surprising,"  and  that  "  no  OflScer  of  any 
department,  no  Trustee,  no  one  but  Mr.  D.  ever  took  any  other  view  than 
that  taken"  by  the  author  of  the  Reply.  The  profound  ignorance  of 
the  Trustees  on  all  matters  (of  fact  and  principle,)  connected  with  the 
real  interests  of  the  Institution,  renders  the  first  clause  of  this  allegation 
extremely  probable.*  The  second  is  simply  untrue.  I  venture  to  affirm, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  no  person  on  the  "  Hill"  ever  alluded 
to  me  or  thought  of  me  as  the  head  of  either  Grammar  school.  I  am  per- 
fectly certain  that  I  never  performed  a  single  act,  or  gave  a  single  direc- 
tion in  that  character  ;  and  that  if  I  had  done  so,  it  would  have  been 
indignantly  resisted,  and  universally  regarded  as  an  act  of  arrogant  and 
unjustifiable  usurpation. 

But  it  is  slated  by  Bishop  McTlvaine  that  "  before  (I)  began  (my) 
duties,  (I)  asked  (him)  to  explain  (my)  relations  to  those  schools,  espe- 
cially Milnor  Hall. — Which  he  did;  slating  that  according  to  all  the 
previous  practice  and  universal  interpretation,  (1)  was  President  of  these 
departments  precisely  as  of  the  College  ;  that  (I)  was  never  heard  to 
demur  to  that  construction,  that  (I)  began  and  went  on  in  the  fulfilment 
of  that  trust,  and  conversed  with  the  Bishop  about  thosn  institutions,  as 
having  that  relation  to  them."  If  I  understand  this  language  right,  it  is 
a  reiteration  in  the  Bishop's  own  name,  of  what  I  have  just  denied,  viz. 
that  I  was  constituted  the  organic  head  of  the  two  Grammar  schools,  and 
endowed  with  administrative  functions  in  and  over  them,  exactly  as  in  the 
College.  But  the  Bishop  is  mistaken.  With  a  full  sense  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  what  I  am  saying,  and  as  I  shall  answer  hereafter,  I  solemnly 
declare  that  the  whole  of  the  statement  for  which  he  here  makes  himself 
responsible  is  untrue.  He  gave  no  such  "  construction";  he  conferred 
no  such  powers.  I  did  not  "  begin  to  fulfil"  any  such  "  trust,"  nor  did 
I  ever  "converse  with  the  Bishop  about  these  institutions  as  having  such 
a  relation  to  them."  I  would  not  have  accepted  the  Presidency,  under 
any  circumstances,  encumbered  with  such  a  condition.     The  powers  of 

•  One  of  the  best  infornaed  of  them  was  surprised,  only  a  few  months  be- 
fore, to  learn  that  the  President's  salary  was  only  $1000. 


24 

the  Presidential  office  were  certainly  defined  as  extending,  in  a  certain 
sense,  to  these  Grammar  schools, — 1  was  in  favor  at  (hat  lime,  and  the 
Bishop  exceedingly  liberal, — but  it  was  as  to  them,  a  supervisory  power, 
over  organised  departments,  each  having  its  own  pi oper  head,  responsi- 
ble, not  to  me,  but  to  him — the  bishop — and  the  Board  of  Trustees  ;  su- 
pervisory, as  his  own  oversight  of  a  parish  is  supervisory,  and  not  at  all 
administrative  or  interior,  like  that  ot  the  President  over  the  College.  I 
again  solemnly  affirm,  that  no  such  construction  was  ever  put  upon  my 
duties  or  my  responsibilities  by  the  Bishop  or  any  one  else,  till  it  became 
necessary  to  trump  up  a  pretext  for  my  removal.  And  I  appeal  to  the 
unvarying  usage  and  custom  of  the  ''  Hill";  to  the  constant  language  of 
Bishop  Mcllvaine,  and  to  the  repeated  declarations  of  the  Board  of  Trus- 
tees, in  corroboration  of  this  fact.  What  man,  woman  or  child,  ever 
looked  to  me  for  any  single  function  or  responsibility  in  the  interior  man- 
agement of  Milnor  Hall .''  Was  any  body,  but  Mr.  Blake  and  Mr.  Badger, 
ever  so  much  as  thought  of  in  connection  with  those  responsibilities  T  I 
answer  unhesitatingly,  and  without  fear  of  contradiction  from  any  quar- 
ter, no  !  And  the  same  is  equally  predicable  of  the  Senior  Grammar 
school.  Look  at  the  catalogues,  i  hey  give  in  due  order  the  names  of 
the  HEADS  and  all  the  mbmbbrs  of  those  schools,  but  they  give  not  the 
slightest  reference  to  the  President,  as  having  any  organic  connection 
with  them  whatever.  Hear  also  Bishop  Mcllvaine.  As  early  as  1833, 
in  his  appeal  to  the  public,  he  spoke  of  the  Institution  as  consisting  of 
'*  four  distinct  seminaries — the  Theological  Seminary,  Kenyon  College, 
the  Senior  Preparatory,  and  Junior  Preparatory  Grammar  Schools."  In 
all  the  negotiation  under  which  I  became  President  of  the  College,  the 
Preparatory  Schools  were  not  so  much  as  named  or  alluded  to  by  him. 
In  his  address  to  the  convention  of  1841,  after  speaking  in  great  praise  of 
the  College  under  my  Presidency,  he  thus  proceeds:  "  The  same  may 
be  said  with  emphasis,  ot  the  Junior  Preparatory  school,  Milnor  Hall. 
Under  the  great  efforts  and  untiring  zeal  of  the  Principals,  that  department 
has  been  wholly  renovated,  &c."  Finally,  observe  the  language  and 
action  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  to  the  same  effect.  In  their  Report  to 
the  Convention  of  1839,  they  say  :  "  The  Institution,  as  the  Convention 
are  aware,  comprises  four  departments — a  Theological  and  Collegiate, 
and  two  Academical  or  Preparatory ;  each  has  its  appropriate  fifficers, 
its  separate  course  of  studies,  and  its  peculiar  regulations  anddisci|)line." 
In  the  reports  of  comn)ittees  entered  upon  their  minutes — as  for  instance, 
at  the  meeting  at  Gambler  in  September  1842,  when  a  committee  reported 
the  (then)  prosperous  condition  of  the  Junior  Grammar  School, — to 
whom  do  they  refer  as  the  responsible  head  ot  that  Institution  .''  To  me  .'' 
Oh  no  !  Such  a  reference  would  have  been  perfectly  ridiculous.  No  ! 
They  refer  justly  and  properly  to  Messrs.  Blake  and  Badger — the  joint 
Principals  ;  and  1  venture  to  say,  that  the  absurdity  of  a  reference  to  me 
in  that  relation,  is  not  to  be  found  any  where  in  the  records  of  that  astute 
body,  however  ready  they  may  have  been  to  "  see  thmgs  otherwise," 
when  THE  Bishop  had  a  special  end  to  be  ansu^ered  by  their  so  seeing. 

But  though  1  had,  as  I  have  thus  clearly  shown,  "  nothing  to  do  with 
the  internal  affairs  of  these  schools,  I  was  not  indifferent  to  their  welfare, 
and  did  faithfully,  perhaps  too  faithfully,  all  that  was  in  my  power  to 
avert  the  slate  of  things,  which  in  my  view  incurred,  as  to  them,  the 
loss  of  public  confidence  and  patronage.  What  that  state  of  things 
was,  in  regard  to  the  Senior  Grammar  School,  I  have  already  in  part 
intimated.  You  will  better  understand  it,  however,  as  well  as  some 
other  things  connected  with  the  whole  subject,  by  the  addition  of  a  gene- 
ral remark,  which  I  may  insert  here. 


25 

The  whole  Institution, — College  and  Grammar  schools,  at  the  date  of 
my  first  personal  acquaintance  with  them, — was  found,  as  to  classic  dis- 
cipline, most  unexpectedly  and  alarmingly  low;  greatly  below  that  of 
any  reputable  eastern  College:  And  the  Grammar  schools,  far  from  fur- 
nishing a  resource  for  the  correction  of  this  evil,  stood  precisely  in  the 
way  of  any  substantial  improvement.  The  desire  of  the  Principals,  young 
in  office,  to  fulfil  the  expectations  of  parents,  (often  injudiciously  exci- 
ted,) in  regard  to  the  admission  of  their  sons  into  the  College,  was  para- 
mount, whether  the  latter  were  prepared  or  not;  and  it  was  no  uninvidi- 
ous  task  1  assure  you,  for  me,  or  any  one  else,  to  raise  a  question  on  the 
ground  of  qualification.  In  the  Senior  Grammar  school,  and  in  the  Col- 
lege, by  operating  through  the  Tutors,  I  was  enabled  to  accomplish  some- 
thing, notwithstanding  the  inertia  and  occasionally  the  undissembled  op- 
position ol  Professor  Sandels.  But  in  the  Junior  Grammar  school,  hav- 
ing no  such  lever,  my  task  was  a  much  more  difficult  one.  My  first  im- 
pressions of  that  Institution  weie  highly  in  its  favor.  It  was  vacation,  but 
the  general  arrangements  for  police  and  external  management,  seemed 
admirable,  and  I  supposed  every  thing  else  must  be  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing. This  impression  was  a  little  shaken  during  the  summer  of  1841,  but 
complet  ly  overset  at  the  first  examination  I  attended,  in  July  of  that 
year;  and  I  became  painfully  aware,  that,  with  all  the  decorum  and  pro- 
priety of  its  external  arrangements,  there  was  no  such  thing  as  sound 
mental  disci|)line  in  the  school.*  The  candidates  for  the  Freshman  class 
of  the  College,  furnished  no  exception  to  this  remark  ;  they  were  totally 
unfitted  for  admission.  A  years'  hard  study  would  scarcely  have  qualified 
them  for  admission  into  any  respectable  college  ;  and  yet  Mr.  Badger, 
their  instructor,  thought  them  well  prepared, f — Mr.  Sandels  did  not  ob- 
ject,— and  I  was  too  new  to  the  whole  system  to  be  at  liberty  to  take  the 
stand  which  my  judgment  strongly  suggested.  Six  of  the  seven  were 
therefore  admitted,  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  their  parents,  and  the 
great  glory  of  the  Junior  Grammar  School. 

And  no  V,  what  think  you  was  my  duty  in  these  premises  ?  Messrs. 
Blake  and  Badger  were  not  appointed  by  me  ;  they  were  not  in  any  way 
accountable  to  me  in  the  performance  of  their  d  Jties  ;  but  the  well-being 
of  the  College,  and  a  really  friendly  regard  for  them  (Blake  and  Badger,) 
and  for  the  institution  over  which  they  presided,  forbade  that  I  should  |>ass 
over  this  state  of  things  without  some  attempt  to  ameliorate  it.  Nor  did 
I.  I  embraced  an  early  opportunity  of  conversing  on  the  subject  with 
Mr.  Badger, — expressed,  with  perfect  frankness,  and  as  much  freedom  as 
I  felt  myself  at  liberty  to  use,  the  results  of  my  observation,  and  my 
views  as  to  the  proper  mo'le  of  classic  discipline, — tendered  my  services, 
at  his  pleasure,  to  visit  the  school,  and,  in  any  way,  give  all  the  influence 
in  my  power  to  stimulate  the  pupils  in  their  classic  recitations.  So  far  as 
Mr.  Badger  was  concerned,  I  have  reason  to  believe  these  sus:gestions 
were  received,  as  they  were  certainly  given,  in  a  kind  and  friendly  spirit; 
but  I  am  equally  certain  that  they  were  coldly  and  unkindly  regarded  by 
Mr.  Blake  ;  that  my  personal  efforts  at  the  "  Hall"  were  deemed  obtru- 
sive by  him,  and  the  impediment  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  promotion  of 
Milnor  Hall  boys,   invidious  and  offensive.     Certain  I  am,  that  his  man- 

•  There  was  scarcely  a  question  asked  on  any  subject,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  the  examination,  that  was  not  answered  by  the  examiner,  or  so 
put  in  a  leadinsr  form  as  to  infallibly  sugg'»st  the  answer.  In  the  Classics, 
there  was  scarcely  a  phrase  construed  or  a  word  parsed,  in  which  all  that 
had  any  approximation  to  correctness,  was  not  suggested  seriatim  by  the  ex- 
aminer.    These  circumstances  were  particularly  noted  at  the  lime. 

t  Mr.  Blake  did  not  pretend  to  teach  even  thus  far,  in  clastiet. 

4 


26 

ner  towards  me  became  more  repulsive,  and  at  times  positively  insulting; 
nor  was  I  at  all  surprised  to  be  informed*  that  the  boys,  his  pupils, 
went  home  to  their  parents  with  a  strong  impression  "  against  the  Presi- 
dent." 

That  I  should  have  relaxed  the  zeal  of  my  supervisory  efforts  under 
these  circumstances,  seems  tome  a  matter  of  course  ;  and  yet  the  author 
of  the  "  Reply,"  page  16,  adverts  to  it  as  if  it  was  a  dereliction  of  duty. 
He  would  have  had  me  go  on,  it  seems,  in  the  course  of  action  I  had  cho- 
sen to  adopt,  without  any  regard  to  the  amount  of  ill-feeling  or  jealousy 
(unpopularity)  I  might  incur  from  Mr.  Blake,  or  any  one  else  ;  and  yet, 
mark  me,  I  have  been  tried  and  condemned  in  the  secret  councils  of  this 
man  (the  writer  of  the  Reply)  and  his  colleagues ;  and  actually  hurled 
from  my  office,  without  a  moment's  warning,  on  a  secret  present- 
ment FOR  unpopularity,  RESTING  UPON  THE  SECRET  IN- 
FORMATION  OF  THIS  VERY  Mr.  BlAKE. 

But  I  must  get  back  to  my  subject.  I  have  been  drawn  aside,  perhaps 
too  far,  in  speaking  of  my  relations  to  the  two  Grammar  Schools,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  attempt  of  my  adversaries  to  fix  upon  me  the  responsi- 
bility of  their  decline.  I  do  not  forget,  however,  that  I  am  really  discus- 
sing ?i  financial  question,  touching  an  alleged  insufficiency  of  the  receipts 
to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  institution,  and  that  it  still  remains  to  be  in- 
quired. 

Thirdly.  Whether  the  "  deficit,"  spoken  of  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine, 
may  not  have  arisen  from  the  falling  off  of  the  Land  Revenue  .?  I 
have  shown  that  there  was  no  "  deficit,"  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term, 
in  the  College  ;  that  there  was  not  a  very  considerable  one  from  first  to 
last,  and  leaving  responsibility  out  of  the  question,  in  the  Senior  Gram- 
mar School;  and  in  the  Junior  Grammar  School,  regarding  it  in  the  same 
aspect,  none.  The  only  other  souice  of  revenue,  to  be  noticed,  then,  is 
the  Domain,  the  "  College  Township,"  the  lands,  farms,  biiild- 
ings,  &c.,  the  administration  of  which,  in  theory  ZinA  practice,  was  exclu- 
sively reserved  to  the  Episcopate,  as  Prudential  Committee. 

By  the  Treasurer's  report  in  1835,  heretofore  referred  to,  it  a|)pears  that 
although  the  deficit  of  the  college  for  that  year,  (after  absorbing  all  the 
profits  of  the  Grammar  schools),  was  more  than  ^1700,  the  revenue,  from 
land  and  other  rents,  was  sufficient,  not  only  to  extinguish  this  arrearaoe, 
but  to  meet  the  interest  of  the  debt,  amounting  to  nearly  as  much  more, 
and  still  leave  an  unexpended  balance  of  .$450  in  the  Treasury.  The  nett 
income  from  this  source,  was,  in  short,  at  that  time,  ,$3841.  It  would  not 
be  unreasonable,  I  think,  to  expect  that  this  income  had  been  somewhat  in- 
creased in  1844,  by  the  improvements  from  1835  to  that  time  ;  and  espe- 
cially as  we  find  an  addition  of  som«  $6000  1o  the  capital  debt,  on  (hat  ac- 
count; a  considerable  portion  of  which  must  have  been  incurred  within  (hat 
period.  But  even  if  it  had  remained  unaltered,  as  the  debt  of  the  in- 
stitution had  been  paid,  and  the  interest  account,  therefore,  extinguished, 
it  was  sufficient  to  have  met  the  entire  wants  of  the  Collegiate  depart- 
ment, (in  1844),  incluvling  (he  "  $400  for  a  Theological  Professor,"  and 
still  to  have  left  a  surplus  of  from  $1700  to  $1800  in  the  Treasury.  The 
declaration  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  then,  '^that  there  would  be  a  deficit  to  a 
large  amount,"  after  all  the  "  income  of  the  lands,"  Sfc,  ''had  been  ex- 
pended," implies  that  there  must  have  been  a  falling  off  in  the  latter  since 
1835,  of  from  $2500  to  $3000  ;  and  this  conclusion  is  verified  by  other 
evidences,  bearing:  upon  (he  subject.  The  Report  of  (he  Trustees  (o  the 
Convention   of   1843 — for   instance,    under   the   head   of    "  Buildings, 

•  This  fact  was  stated  in  terms  by  the  Bishop,  in  his  interview  with  the  Se- 
nior and  Sophomore  classes,  as  I  am  prepared  to  prove. 


27 

Farms,"  ^-c.,— ogives  the  " total  receipts,  $2992.20,"  and  the  "total 
expenditures,  $1928.67," — leaving  an  "  excess  of  receipts,  $'1063. 53." 
Finally  it  was  stated  by  Mr.  Dennison,  in  committee,  on  the  memorable 
evening-  of  the  28ih  of  February,  1844,  that  the  nett  amount  of  the  land 
revenue  for  the  year,  would  not  exceed  §900. 

Here,  then,  is  the  rub — the  real  source  of  the  alarming  deficit  so  much 
talked  of;  not  "  in  the  salaries  of  the  College  officers,"  nor  in  "  the  de- 
clining state  of  (the  College)  department  " — as  the  Bishop  has  it — but  in 
the  prostration,  the  fritterring  away  of  the  means,  duly  provided  and  al- 
ways counted  upon,  for  the  payment  of  those  salaries.  Think  of  the  rev- 
enue of  this  magnificent  domain — 4,000  acres  of  rich,  productive  Ohio 
land — estimated  by  the  Trustees  in  1842  (see  Journal  of  Convention,  page 
74,)  at  ^'90,000 — besides  mill  property,  and  a  whole  village  of  tenements; 
the  revenue  from  all  these  sources,  amounting,  in  1835,  to  almost  g-4,000 
per  annum,  now  dwindled  down,  under  the  management  of  the  Pruden- 
tial Committee,  to  g*900I  Can  any  one,  contemplating  this  state  of  things, 
fail  to  perceive  tlie  deep  policy  of  the  whole  proceeding  against  me  .''  At 
a  moment  when  the  mismanagement  of  this  noble  property  seems  to  have 
reached  its  climax,  when  the  evidence  of  its  abuse  had  become  too  pal- 
pable to  remain  much  longer  unobserved,  when  it  was  daily  to  be  ex- 
pected that  the  friends  and  patrons  of  the  Institution  would  become 
alarmed  and  call  for  some  inquiry  on  the  subject,  a  hubbub  is  suddenly 
raised  about"  the  unpopularity  of  the  President,"  an  alarming  "  diminu- 
tion in  the  College  classes  "  is  discovered  all  at  once,  the  Institution  is 
threatened  with  a  "  deficit  to  a  large  amount  "  in  consequence,  and  "  a 
new  debt  will  have  to  be  incurred  (so  they  say)  unless  he  (the  President) 
is  immediately  removed  from  office."  All  this  is  duly  seasoned  (in  the 
Reply)  with  intimations  of  the  wasteful  expenditures  of  that  officer — his 
recklessness  in  such  matters — his  utter  indifference,  in  short,  to  all  con- 
siderations  of  this  kind;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  in  strong  contrast,  the 
solemn  responsibility  of  the  Bishop — his  vigilance  in  guarding  against 
abuses — his   "  bounden  duty  to  a   College,  which,  by  so  much  labor, 

HE  HAD  JUST  SUCCCEEDED  IN  RELIEVING  FR03I  ITS  EMBAR- 
RASSMENTS." Can  it  be  a  question,  I  say,  in  the  mind  of  any  one,  af- 
ter what  has  been  said,  that  all  this  is  but  part  and  parcel  of  the  most 
deep  and  subtle  scheme  to  overwhelm  me,  and  at  the  same  time  to  divert 
inquiry  from  a  real  and  palpable  abuse  of  a  great  public  trust  ?  And  see 
how  perfectly  it  would  have  been  consummated  had  I  been  weak  enough, 
under  the  wheedling  of  Col.  Bund,  to  tender  my  resignation. 

We  proceed,  now,  to  examine  the  mode  and  the  means  and  appliances 
by  which,  according  to  the  "  Reply,"  the  final  result  was  brought  about: 
"  The  Bishop  was  bound  (he  tells  us)  as  President  of  the  Corptnation  and 
Prudential  Committee,  to  look  info  the  causes  of  this  deficiency,  and  'his 
he  (accordingly)  proceeded  to  do  with  all  delicacy  and  caution."  What 
were  the  Bishop's  ideas  of  "  delicacy  and  caution  ?"  Doubtless — you  will 
say — he  went  immediately  to  the  President,  and  spread  the  u  hole  matter 
confidentially  before  him.  The  President  was  at  the  head  of  the  Acade- 
mic administration — no  small  respon-sibility — and  more  deeply  interested, 
personally,  in  the  prosperity  of  the  College  than  any  other  individual.  It 
is  hardly  supposable  that  he  could  have  been  called  to  that  situation  with- 
out some  pretension,  also,  to  experience  and  education,  and  professional 
standing;  and  a  reference  to  the  contemporaneous  le'ie»s  and  publications 
of  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  show  that  he  actually  regarded  him  as  holding  a 
very  high  rank  in  all  these  respects*  Besides,  he  was  the  Bishop's  "dear" 

•The  following  article,  from  the  Western  E.  Observer  of  March  27th, 1S41, 
is  instructive  on  this  subject  as  coming  from  the  pen  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 
Of  course  I  am  not  responsible  for  its  hyperboUsms  : — 


28 

and  "  old  friend;"  having  acknowledged  claims  upon  him  from  "the 
long  and  intimate  associations  "  subsisting  between  them,  (nearly  twen- 
ty years)  "  under  such  various  and  interesting  circumstances."*  In  ev- 
ery view  of  the  case,  under  every  suggestion  of  official  propriety,  frank- 
ness, faith  and  honor,  it  was  the  plain  and  obvious  duty  of  Bishop  McU- 
yaine  to  consult  the  President  of  the  College  at  the  very  threshhold  of  this 
inquiry.  Did  he  do  so?  Oh  no!  His  "delicacy  and  caution  "  were  of  a 
different  complexion  altogelheri  not  the  caution  that  hesitates  under  the 
fear  of  doing  wrong,  but  that  which  seeks  concealment,  and  dreads  only 
— discovery.  The  inquiry  was  secret.  No  little  address  must  have  been 
required  to  keep  it  from  coming  to  the  ears  of  the  President,  eight  entire 
weeks,  (the  Bishop  and  his  consultants  being  all  the  while  in  daily  inter- 
course with  me,)  till  his  Trustees  could  be  got  together,  and  the  blow 
struck;  Out  it  was  not  wanting.  The  mind  that  conceived  the  plan  had 
in  it  precisely  those  elements  of  "delicacy  and  caution  "  needful  for  its 
execution.  The  eight  weeks  rolled  round;  the  Board  met,  and  their  work 
was  already  done  before  a  single  note  of  alarm  reached  me.  Yet  the  Bi- 
shop would  have  it  believed  there  was  no  plot,  no  design,  no  scheme 
against  me  at  all. 

Who  were  the  persons  actually  honored  with  the  Episcopal  confidence 
in  these  proceedings  .'  My  particular  friends,  he  tells  us;  persons  who 
had  been  advanced  by  ray  patronage,  and  who  enjoyed,  in  some  sense, 
my  regard  and  confidence.  This  was  his  idea  of  "  delicacy."  But  why 
such  delicacy  if  there  was  no  previous  design — no  presentiment  in  his 

"Kenyon  College — President  Douglass  arrived  at  Gambier  the  day  before 
the  close  of  the  term  last  week.  His  connections,  in  the  duties  of  an  Engi- 
neer with  an  extensive  company  in  New  York  having  been  rendered  unex- 
pectedly difficult  of  completion  by  the  increase  of  embarrassments  in  the  bu- 
siness community  of  the  East,  have  occasioned,  necessarily,  some  delay  in  his 
coming  to  the  sphere  of  his  future  labors.  Meanwhile,  however,  the  full 
course  of  study  in  the  College  has  been  vigorously  sustained.  The  Faculty  is 
now  very  strong.  President  Douglass  has  had  great  experience  in  education, 
and  been  most  zealously  enlisted  in  the  effort  to  improve  the  literature  and 
science  of  our  country  by  means  of  Institutions  combining  the  decided  incul- 
cation  of  Christian  prmciples  and  duties  with  the  pursuit  of  secular  learning. 
No  less  than  sixteen  classes,  of  as  many  successive  years,  at  West  Point, were 
trained  by  hun,  as  he  filled  successively  the  Professorships  of  Mathematics, 
of  Natural  Philosophy,  and  of  Civil  and  Military  Engineering.  Almost  all 
the  eminent  scientific  instructors,  who  were  trained  at  that  Institution,  were 
educated  by  him.  Prof,  lloss,  of  Mathematics,  at  Kenyon  College,  who  is 
universally  considered  as  second  to  no  mathematician  or  instructor  in  Ameri- 
ca, was  his  pupil.  So  were  the  Professors  who  now  occupy  the  three  princi- 
pal chairs  at  West  Point.  To  the  great  devotion  and  skill  of  President  Doug- 
lass in  the  cause  of  education,  he  adds  the  zeal  of  a  devoted  christian,  for  the 
highest  interests  of  man,  associated  with  the  utmost  kindness  of  manner,  and 
benevolence  of  disposition.  The  cause  of  literature  and  science  in  the  West 
has  received,  indeed,  a  great  accession  of  strength  in  the  person  of  this  gen- 
tleman, and  Kenyon  College  may  well  be  proud  of  her  President." 

Who  could  have  anticipated  that,  in  three  years  from  the  date  of  this  arti- 
cle, the  eminent,  devoted,  and  benevolent  individual  here  described,  should 
have  been  characterized  by  the  same  pen  as  "  chilling  and  repelling  "  in  his 
manners — "  constitutionally  and  habiluatlu  unfit  for  office — only  appointed 
thereto  "  when  it  really  went  a  beaging,"  he,  and  thai  he  should  have  been 
arraigned — dismissed  rather — without  a  previous  complaint  made,  or  ques- 
tion asked,  on  the  presentment  of  the  College  bell  ringer.  But  even  this  is  not 
the  greatest  of  the  marvels  connected  with  this  strange  proceeding. 

•See  the  Bishop's  letter  of  condolence,  dated  the  day  after  my  dismissal 
in  my  former  statement,  page  34. 


29 

mind  against  me?  Why  avoid  me,  whom,  on  every  just  principle,  he 
should  have  consulted,  to  tamper  with  the  weak  (or  unprincipled?)  breth- 
ren of  my  Academic  family?  The  Bishop  himself  gives  the  solution  : — 
"The  President  had  a  few  days  before  more  than  once  informed  (him) 
that  the  College  was  never  in  a  neallhier  slate.  Such  (he  adds)  being  the 
remaikable  contrast  between  his  idfa  of  the  stale  of  ihings  and  that  of 
his  officers,  the  Bishop  proceeded  to  no  further  inquiries,"  &c.  In  other 
words,  my  testijnony  did  not  suit — theirs  did.* 

The  Bishop  labors  hard  to  bolster  up  the  respectability  of  his  consult- 
ants, and  make  it  appear  that  they  were  a  considerable  portion  of  the  ofH- 
cers  of  the  College;  but  Ihey  were  not  so,  either  in  numbers,  experience, 
intelligence,  or  general  character.  Mr.  Blake,  as  I  have  already  staled, 
was  one  of  the  Heads  of  the  Junior  Grammar  School.  He  (or  his  col- 
league) had  indeed  a  seal  in  the  Faculty,  (for  what  purpose  is  not  exact- 
ly known)  bul  he  was  not  a  dillege  officer,  nor  competent,  by  his  own 
acknowledgment,  to  have  discharged  the  duties  of  the  lowest  Academic 
station  there.  Mr.  Lang  was,  in  no  sense,  an  "  officer  "  of  the  College 
or  of  the  Faculty.  He  was  simply  an  undergraduate  student,  to  whom 
the  perquisite  oi  ringing  the  hell  had  been  given,  to  aid  him  in  his  (me- 
ritorious) efiforls  to  complete  his  education ;  and  for  this  purj)Ose  also  I 
had  recommended  him  as  a  teacher  of  Elementary  Mathematics  in  the 
Senior  Grammar  School  | 

Of  the  four  consultants  then  named  by  the  Bishop,  and  so  often  referred 
to  as  "  THE  officers,"  only  two  were  really  officers  of  the  College  at  all. 
There  were  in  the  College  altogether,  as  you  probably  know,  four  Pro- 
fessors and  two  Tutors.  The  Bishop's  consultation  embraced  but  a  sin- 
gle person  of  each  grade.  Prof.  Ross  was  not  included,  any  more  than 
myself,  nor  Prof.  Thrall,  nor  Tutor  Comstock;  Prof.  Sandels  and  Tutor 
Gil)bs  were,  and  to  them  were  added  Mr.  Blake,  the  English  teacher  of 
the  Junior  Grammar  School,  and  the  undergraduate,  Mr.  Lang  ;  and  it  is 
this  compound  of  odds  and  ends  that  is  held  up  in  the  "  Reply  "  as  the 
Academic  corps — the  official  body  of  the  College — "  my  officers,"  &c. 

I  shall  not  undertake  to  distribute  very  nicely  the  proportions  of  dis- 
honor incurred  by  the  individual  parties  of  this  quartette.  I  cannot  but 
hope  yet  that  ihe  agency  of  some  one  or  two  of  them  is  misrepresented  in 
the  "  Reply."  They  were  examined  separately,  it  seems  and  in  private. 
Bishop  Mcllvaine  was  at  liberty  to  make  any  version  of  their  replies  he 
thought  proper;  nor  does  he  pretend  to  have  sulmiitted  that  version  to  be 
corrected  and  verified  by  them  afterwards,  except  in  the  particular  case 
of  Prof.  Sandels.  The  presentment  set  forth  in  the  "  Reply  "  then,  (p. 
8-9,)  while  it  purports  to  have  come  from  the  joint  and  unanimous  tcsti- 

*  The  Bishop  throws  m  a  remark  at  this  point,  that  I  was  indifferent  to  the 
pecuniary  welfare  of  the  Institution,  and  took  no  concern  in  its  indebtedness, 
&c.  The  assertion,  however,  is  wholly  gratuitous — not  only  unproven  but  in- 
capable  of  proof — for  it  is  untrue.  During  all  my  early  residence  on  the  "Hill" 
I  was  unceasing  in  my  inquiries  and  conversations  on  this  subject,  till  it  be- 
came too  evident  to  he  mistaken  that  the  Bishop  did  not  intend  to  admit  me, 
quo  ad  hoc,  to  his  confi  lence  :  and  it  was  pointedly  intimated  to  me  by  Prof. 
Sandels,  when  the  Bishop's  obliquities  towards  me  first  began  to  be  noticed, 
that  THIS  was  a  point  on  which  he  could  not  bear  to  be  questioned.  "  You 
may  gel  along  with  him  (said  he)  on  all  other  points,  bul  beware  of  that," 
and  accordingly  I  did,  then  and  for  that  reason  only,  begin  to  beware.  But  I 
did  not  cease  to  feel  therefore  ;  and  perhaps  it  may  yet  appear  that  I  felt  as 
much  and  as  disinterestedly  even  as  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

X  A  College  honor  open  to  undergraduates. 


30 

mony  of  the  four,  really  stands  upon  his  declaration  alone;  nor  will  I  be- 
lieve, till  it  is  established  by  unequivocal  testimony,  under  the  test  of  a 
cross  examination,  that  either  of  the  others — Lang  and  Gibbs  at  least — 
would  deliberately  have  verified  what  they  could  not  but  have  known  to 
he  false.  It  is,  however,  unquestionable,  that  while  they  were  in  daily 
and  familiar  intercourse  with  me — Gibbs  and  Sandels  as  members  of  the 
Academic  family,  and  Lang  as  a  favored  pupil — and  all,  except  Mr. 
Blake,  apparently  on  terms  of  the  most  entiie  confidence  and  coidialily; 
they  were  for  eight  weeks  also  in  the  relation  of  secret  correspondents  of 
Bisliop  Mcllvaine,  and,  with  full  consciousness,  co-operating  in  a  design 
to  drive  me  from  my  office  and  station,  by  an  attack  upon  the  dearest  and 
most  vital  of  all  this  world's  interests — my  name  and  character.  It  will 
be  said,  perhaps,  in  excuse,  that  they  weie  called  upon  by  the  Bishop.  I 
answer,  the  Bishop  must  have  known  upon  whom  to  call,  and  how  to  season 
his  application.  He  called  u\>onthem  because  they  were  available  for  his 
purpose,  and  did  not  presume  to  call  upon  others  who  he  knew  were 
not  available.* 

But  the  important  part  in  all  this  preparatory  movement  seems  to  have 
been  played  by  Professor  Sandels  ;  Professor  of  the  Latin  and  Greek 
Languages  and  Literature"  in  Kenyon  College  ;  head  of  the  Senior 
Grammar  School,  and  "  Instructor  of  Latin  and  Greek"  in  the  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  of  the  Diocese  nf  Ohio.  Such  an  accumulation  of  titles 
and  offices  would  ordinarily  imply  ihat  the  incumbent  must  be  some  vete- 
ran in  literature,  deeply  read  in  all  the  lore  of  classical  antiquity,  and 
perfectly  at  home  in  all  the  disciplinary  administration  of  "  Colleges  and 
Halls."  In  the  present  instance,  however,  you  must  prepare  yourself  for 
a  different  reality.  The  professor  was  no  veteran  ;  an  Irishman  by  birth, 
not  very  long  in  this  country,  without  any  regular  education,  graduated 
in  no  college,  and  never  associated  (till  he  came  to  Kenyon,)  with  any 
academic  body  whatever.  So  late  as  1840  he  was  a  Theological  student 
in  the  Seminary  ;  but  having  made  himself  in  some  way  useful  to  (he 
Bishop  in  the  movements  of  that  year,  he  was  suddenly  elevated  after 
a  short  period  of  tutor's  duty, — a  little  before  his  ordination — to  the 
Professorship,  and  other  responsibilities  above  named.  His  depart- 
ment, as  I  have  already  intimated,  was,  in  discipline  and  attain- 
ment, far  below  the  grade  of  the  same  department  in  respecable 
eastern  Colleges.  It  could  not  well  be  otherwise.  The  discipine,  as 
line,  as  might  be  expected,  was  extremely  superficial  ;  in  addition  to 
which  a  considerable  proportion  of  his  recitations  were  often  omitted  on 
the  slightest  pretexts.  It  is  susceptible  of  proof,  that  at  the  date  of  my 
removal,  the  most  delinquent  person — graduate  or  undergraduate — con- 
nected with  the  Institution,  was  the  Professor  of  Languages.  He  had 
heard  the  Freshman  class  in  Xenopbon  but  17  recitations,  and  the  Juniors 
in  Tacitus  but  16,  in  eight  weeks, — and  wondered  why  the  latter  did  not 
take  more  interest  in  the  subject.  His  turn  at  prayers  was  omitted — not 
uncommonly — four  or  five  times  out  of  seven  for  months  together  ;  the 

•  Mr.  Lang  was  appointed  Head  of  the  Senior  Grammar  School  a  few 
months  after.  Mr.  Gibbs  is  styled  in  the  "  Reply"  "an  officer  of  (my) 
choosing,"  but  he  was  not  chosen  by  me.  Prior  to  his  appointment,  I  had 
never  seen  him  or  heard  of  him.  A  Tutor  was  to  be  chosen  ;  the  Senior  Tu- 
tor,  with  whom  he  was  to  be  associated  in  duty,  strongly  recommended  a 
friend  and  classmate,  whose  name  was  Gibbs  ;  I  nominated  him  accordingly, 
and  he  was  elected  by  the  Faculty.  Had  I  known  him  I  should  not  have  no- 
minated him,  for  many  reasons.  Though  of  mature  age,  he  was  in  mind, 
character,  intelligence  and  manners,  a  mere  youth  ;  and  over  and  above  all, 
an  open  declaimer  against  the  church,  by  whose  endowment  he  was  paid  and 
gratuitously  instructed. 


31 

excuse  being,  that  he  could  not  wake  up.  These  derelictions 
of  duty  were  the  subject  of  earnest  and  oft  repeated  appeals  on  niy  part ; 
and  it  is  known  to  Pro'e  sor  toss,  as  well  as  to  Professor  Sandels,  (hat 
for  a  long  time  it  was  to  me  a  subject  of  deep  grief,  that  1  could  not  by 
any  admonitions  or  entreaties,  awaken  in  the  latter  the  least  interest  in 
any  of  the  duties  to  which  he  was  pledged.  * 

Such  was  the  character  and  responsibility  of  the  chief  witness  in  this 
proceeding  ;  and  it  was  before  such  testimony,  be  it  remembered,  that 
the  "  skill,"  and  "  experience,"  and  "  zeal"  and  devotion  and  Christian 
character  and  "  benevolence  of  disposition"  of  the  new  President,  so 
recently  lauded  in  all  the  forms  of  rhetoric  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  vanished 
from  his  mind  like  the  early  dew.  It  was  not  even  necessary  to  "  ask 
HIS  opinion"  on  a  subject  of  the  most  momentous  concern  to  himself  and 
to  the  Institution  ;  "  the  remarkable  contrast  between  his  idea  of  the 
stale  of  things  and  that  of  his  officers  ;  (i.  e.  Blake,  Lang,  Gibbs  and 
Sandels,)  being  in  the  Bishop's  opinion  a  sufficient  reason  for  making 
"  no  further  inquiries."  The  testimony  thus  drawn  out  and  recorded  in 
the  Bishop's  private  memorandum.  (Reply,  p.  8-9,)  embraces  substan- 
tially the  followinff  allegations  :  F^rst — that  the  students  were  without 
exception  extremely  dissatisfied  with  the  President's  "  ways  and  modes, 
in  the  government  of  the  College,  and  with  no  person  or  thing  of  the 
Institution  besides.  Secondly — that  because  of  this  dissatisfaction  they 
had  lost  their  interest  in  the  Institution  and  become  indifferent  to  its 
discipline.  Thirdly — that  the  spread  nf  these  sentiments  abroad,  had 
made  parents  far  and  wide  unwilling  to  send  their  sons.  And  finally — 
that  the  same  feeling  pervaded  the  Faculty  ;  the  President  having  usurped 
all  the  powers  cf  government,  to  the  exclusion  of  that  body,  and  they 
allowing  it  only  "  from  a  wish  to  avoid  unpleasant  difficulties  with  him." 

These  allegations,  though  of  no  particular  importance  as  bearing  upon 
the  ulterior  action  of  the  Board  of  Trustees, — for  they  were  not  laid  be- 
fore that  body  at  all, — are  yet  of  no  little  significance  as  developing  the 
f  rounds  of  the  Bishop's  action,  and  the  state  of  the  plot  on  the  6th  of 
anuary.  I  am  not  arraigned,  you  perceive,  on  any  charge  of  mtscon- 
dact,  (unless  the  last  allegation  be  supposed  to  embrace  some  intimation 
of  that  kind,)  but  upon  an  opinion  of  my  official  conduct  and  character 
said  to  have  been  held  by  the  students  ;  as  if  such  an  opinion — unstable 
and  fluctuating  as  it  is  known  to  be — was  a  proper  test  of  my  official 
character  and  faithfulness  as  President  of  the  College.  Who  ever  ex- 
pected that  in  the  discharge  of  my  difficult  and  n'sponsible  duties,  I 
should  escape  the  judgment,  sometimes  even  the  harsh  judgments,  of 
those  under  my  care  !  Bishop  Mcllvaine  called  me  to  Gambler,  for  the 
purposi!  of  taking  responsibility,  in  the  enforcement  of  a  vigorous  system 
of  discipline  and  study  ;  and  neither  he  or  I  ever  expected  this  to  be 
done  without  great  self-sacrifice,  and  severe  trials  of  firmness  and  pa- 
tience.f  Yet  here  I  find  him  with  his  pliant  auxiliaries,  making  my  very 
self-devotion  in  this  cause,  the  lever  for  my  destruction  ;  and  that  too, 

•  The  relations  in  which  I  found  the  Professor  with  Bishop  M.  on  my  arri- 
val at  Oambier,  naturally  gave  him  a  large  share  of  my  confidence.  He  also 
sympathised  or  appeared  to  sympathize  warmly  with  me  on  various  matters 
and  occasions  where  sympathy  was  needful  ,  (particularly  in  regard  to 
church  matters,  and  the  obliquities  of  Bishop  M.  towards  me  in  1842-3 — till 
Sepiember,  1843.  His  salary  was  raised  then;  and  after  that  I  heard  no  more 
of  sympathy  ;  and  the  plot  against  me  was  brought  to  its  maturity,  precisely 
in  the  four  following  months. 

t  The  following  extract  from  the  addressof  the  Bishop  to  the  Convention  of 
1837 ,  will  show  what  were  his  sentiments  on  this  subject  at  that  time  : ''  If  the 


32 

when  he  knew  (every  ingenuous  student  could  not  but  see)  that  in  thus 
subjecting  the  highest  executive  function  to  the  irresponsible,  and  often 
prejudiced  opinions  of  the  students,  he  was  virtually  surrendering  all  that 
was  dignified  and  respectable  in  the  character  and  government  of  the 
College.  Who,  after  this,  can  exercise  authority,  or  administer  discip- 
line in  Kenyon  College,  except  in  such  degrees  and  proportions  as  the 
subjects  of  such  discipline  may  be  pleased  to  approve.  Bishop  Mcllvaine 
having  made  their  approval  the  unqualified  test  of  executive  faithfulness, 
future  Presidents  and  Professors  will  disregard  it  at  their  peril  ;  and 
what  then  becomes  of  the  dignity  and  character  of  the  College  ? 

Apart  from  the  principle,  I  could  have  had  no  objection  to  rest  my 
case  upon  an  appeal  to  the  students  actually  then  present. 

I  had  not  indeed  made  their  approval  the  primary  object  of  my  admin- 
istration, but  I  had  not  been  therefore  regardless  of  it.  Their  confidence 
was  very  dear  to  me,  and  it  was  one  of  my  most  cherished  reflections,  in 
the  midst  of  laborious  duties  and  severe  trials,  that  by  the  uncompromi- 
sing devotion  of  myself  to  the  permanent  welfare  of  the  Institution,  and 
the  highest  inteiests  of  those  connected  with  it,  I  was  establishing  the  su- 
rest claim  to  the  ultimate  approbation  of  every  intelligent,  thoughtful, and 
right  minded  student.  I  had  moreover  a  sincere  regard  for  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  students  personally,  and  I  could  not  doubt  that  that  regard 
was  in  some  degree  reciprocated.  Without  making  any  particular  in- 
quiries, I  had  sensible  evidence  that  it  was  reciprocated;  and  when  the 
charge  oi  unpopularity  was  brought  out  upon  me,  with  the  suddenness  of  an 
electric  shock,  on  the  eveningof  the  •28(h  of  February,  I  was  far  less  amazed 
by  the  suddenness  than  by  the  substance  of  the  allegation,  and  the  confi- 
dent assurance  with  which  it  was  made.  The  clearest  convictions  of  my 
understanding,  the  results  of  all  my  experience  in  thedaily  intercourse  of 
the  students — a  far  more  intimate  intercourse  than  any  other  person  en- 
joyed— were  diametrically  contradicted  by  it.  And  it  was  only  by  the 
spontaneous  reaction  of  the  students  themselves,  a  few  days  after,  that  I 

number  of  students  in  the  College  classes,  (he  observes)  exclusive  of  those  in 
the  preparatory  departments,  seems  small  in  comparison  with  other  Institu- 
tions, it  should  be  recollected  that  in  the  West,  a  College  can  hardly  be  expected 
to  sustain  a  dignified  stand,  as  to  the  requisites  of  admission;  to  enforce  a 
vigorous  system  of  internal  discipline,  and  carry  out  such  a  course  of  study  as 
becomes  its  profession  and  its  degrees,  without  sacrificing  for  a  long  time 
numbers  for  attainments.  It  is  the  determination  of  those  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  Kenyon  College,  to  endeavor  to  attain  an  enlarged  patronage  with- 
out compromise  with  any  defective  notions  of  education  or  any  humoring  of 
popular  caprice.  A  few  young  men  well  educated  are  worth  a  host  super- 
ficially taught.  Such  a  determination  in  this  country  requires  much  patience 
and  firmness  in  the  prosecution ;  but  I  trust  it  will  never  yield  to  any  tempta- 
tion to  popularity  or  pecuniary  increase  ;  ultimately  it  must  have  its  reward." 
Entertaining  precisely  the  same  views,  I  wrote  to  Bishop  M.  in  the  course  of 
our  negotiation  in  1840,  to  know  whether  I  could  depend  upon  being  sustained 
in  them  by  the  Board  of  Trustees,  and  the  following  is  his  reply  :  "  The 
questions  you  propose  as  to  the  interference  of  the  Board,  &c.  may  all  be 
answered  in  one  sentence — they  have  never  interfered  in  such  things — all  has 
been  left  to  the  Faculty — all  under  yon  will  be  ;  so  you  are  left  at  ease  on  all 
such  heads  ;  therefore  I  conclude  you  will  certainly  come,"&c. 

The  same  views  were  also  taken  and  sustained  in  all  my  consultations 
with  the  Bishop  before  entering  upon  my  duties,  and  it  was  announced 
in  the  chapel,  that  thorough  discipline  and  sound  scholarship  would  be 
insisted  upon  at  all  events.  Finally,  in  my  address  at  the  commencement 
of  1842,  the  same  determination  was  still  more  strongly  and  fully  expressed, 
before  a  very  large  audience  of  the  friends  of  the  institution — the  Bishop 
being  present  and  tacitly  approving.  It  was  a  settled  system  therefore,  fully 
understood  and  sanctioned  by  him  and  duly  published,  on  which  I  acted. 


33 

was  relieved  from  this  state  of  perplexity  and  doubt.    The  following  are 
the  facts. 

I  had  been  giving'  a  course  of  popular  lectures,  at  the  request  of  the 
students,  on  a  subject  of  military  history,  the  last  of  which  was  to  be 
delivered  on  the  Saturday  evening  after  my  dismissal;  but  being  placed 
in  a  new  position  by  that  event,  and  as  a  hostile  feeling  was  said  to  exist 
among  the  students,  I  was  in  doubt  whether  1  might  not  expose  myself 
to  som«i  unpleasant  exhibition  of  that  feeling  in  giving  the  lecture;  and, 
finally  concluded  not  to  give  it.  Immediately  on  making  the  announce- 
ment, however,  1  was  waited  upon  by  a  number  of  the  students,  with  an 
urgent  request  that  I  would  by  no  means  give  up  the  lectuie;  and  in  re- 
ply to  the  reason  assigned,  the  most  full  and  affectionate  disclaimers 
were  uttered  and  reiterated  by  them  in  behalf  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
students.  Thus  reassured,  I  went  to  the  chapel  at  the  hour  appointed,  and 
gave  my  lecture  to  a  most  attentive  and  respectful  audience,  adding  at 
the  conclusion,  as  the  occasion  seemed  to  demand  it,  a  few  words  of  part- 
ing counsel  to  my  young  friends,  without  any  reference  however  to  the 
subject  matter  of  my  removal.  The  professors  and  their  families  were 
there,  and  most  of  the  population  of  the  "  Hill,"  and  many  of  them  will 
undoubtedly  recollect  the  strong  emotion  with  which  these  last  words 
were  received  by  the  students;  the  enthusiastic  response  to  the  vote  of 
thanks;  the  call  that  was  made  upon  me  for  the  charges  on  which  1  had 
been  removed,  and  my  answer;*  and  the  motion  to  pass  a  vote  of  censure 
upon  the  Trustees;  which  motion,  I  am  confidently  assured,  would  have 
passed  by  a  large  majority  had  I  not  interposed  to  prevent  it;  and  finally 
the  adjournment  of  the  students  to  meet  again  on  Monday.  So  far  from 
any  demonstration  of  hostile  feeling,  many  of  the  students  gathered 
round  me,  in  leaving  the  Chapel,  with  the  strongest  expression  of  their 
symfialhy  and  regard;  and  I  have  before  me  unequivocal  evidence  that 
such  was  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  the  students — all,  indeed, 
except  a  very  few,  and  those  mostly,  if  not  all,  beneficiaries — the  paid 
retainers  of  the  Education  Committee.  At  the  meeting  on  Monday  they 
passed  unanimously,  and  of  their  own  motion,  without  any  influence  of 
mine,  (Mr.  Lang  being  in  the  chair,)  a  set  of  resolutions,  much  more 
strongly  expressed  and  more  decidedly  in  my  favor  than  the  letter  of 
which  the  Bishop  makes  so  much  account,  and  it  was  only  when  they 
were  discussing  an  incidental  question  about  publishing  the  resolves,  that 
two  or  three  beneficiaries  came  in,  and  excited  some  opposition;  and  even 
then  their  plea  for  so  doing  was  the  injury  they  affected  to  think  the  re- 
solutions would  do  me.f  So  much  for  the  universal  dissatisfaction  of  the 
students  with  my  administration. 

*  I  objected  to  any  discussion  or  action  on  this  subject,  but  as  the  question 
was  catagorical,  as  to  the  m'tter  charged  against  me,  I  felt  mjself  at  liberty 
to  give  them  the  answer  which  had  been  given  to  me,  by  one  of  the  Trus- 
tees (Col.  Bond)  in  reply  to  the  very  same  question,  which  was  as  follows: 
"Nothing  at  all  sir!  I  have  not  heard  the  beginning  of  a  charge  against 
you.'  A  resolution  was  then  moved  denouncing  the  "injustice  of  my  re- 
moval," but  I  admonished  them  to  abstain  from  any  proceedings  of  that 
kind,  and  immediately  left  the  desk.  My  position  was  a  very  difficult  one. 
I  asked  the  opinion  of  several  of  the  Professors  afterwards,  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  my  action.  None  of  them  censured  me  and  Prof.  Ross  in  particu- 
lar, though:  I  might  have  gone  much  farther. 

t  I  am  said  to  have  stimulated  the<e  meetings,  and  to  have  collected  the 
students  at  my  house,  and  to  have  "  made  great  efforts  to  enlist  their  sym- 
pathies against  the  Bishop  and  the  Board  of  Trustees;"  but  it  is  untrue,  in 
every  particular.  I  did  not  assemble  the  students  in  a  single  instance;  I 
had  nothing  to  do  directly  or  indirectly,  with  any  of  their  meetings;  my  sons 
were  forbidden  to  attend  them.     A  letter  now  before  me,  of  which   I  have 

5 


34 

But  how,  you  will  ask,  could  a  meinorandum  have  been  made  so  oppo- 
site to  the  truth  ?  I  ask  in  reply,  why  did  not  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  ii  he 
wished  to  know  the  truth  in  a  matter  of  such  deep  interest,  go  directly  to 
the  source — the  only  proper  source  of"  correct  inlormation — the  students 
themselves  ?  Why  did  he  call  to  his  councils,  secretly,  lour  special  indi- 
viduals to  give  <Aetr  opinions  of  the  opinions  of  the  students,  when  the 
latter  were  at  hand  to  give  their  own  version  of  the  matter?  Why  did  he 
examine  them  apart,  and  then,  in  the  secrecy  of  his  own  closet,  make  his 
own  memorandum  of  their  aggregate  testimony,  without  subn;ilthig  it, 
afterwards,  to  either  of  them  except  Prof.  Sandels  ?  Was  this  the  way 
to  arrive  at  truth  ? 

The  second  allegation  is,  that  "they,  (the  students,)  found  no  fault 
with  any  thing,  or  anybody,  but  the  President.".  If  Mr.  Gibbs,  one  of 
the  persons  upon  whose  responsibility  this  declaration  is  said  to  stand, 
bad  carried  back  his  recollection  a  few  months,  it  would  have  em- 
braced a  very  critical  state  of  things,  then  existing-  in  one  of  the  classes, 
in  regard  to  himself.  It  was  the  subject  of  an  informal  consultation,  on 
his  own  statement  of  the  matter,  in  the  Faculty,  and  the  occasion  of  some 
interviews  between  him  and  me  :  and  he  may  now  know  further,  that  I 
was  waited  upon  by  a  deputation,  professing  to  represent  the  class,  with 
a  strong  protestation  against  him,  as  a  teacher  and  as  a  man  ;  and  that  it 
was  only  through  my  personal  influence  that  a  very  serious  outbreak  was 
averted. 

There  was,  perhaps,  no  circumstance  in  the  institution  which  was  so 
constantly  complained  of  by  good  students,  as  the  deficiency  and  ineffi- 
ciency of  the  Classical  department.  It  was  notorious  at  all  times  that 
there  were  students  present,  prepared  at  other  seminaries,  ^vho  were  tar 
more  competent  to  instruct  than  the  College  instructors,  and  who  could 
have  no  motive  to  shiy,  with  any  view  to  improvement  in  that  particular; 
while  those  less  thoroughly  prepared,  but  desirous  of  becoming  good 
scholars,  complained  that  they  made  no  progress,  except  as  they  could 
learn  something  incidentally  from  their  mote  competent  fellow  students. 
Several  of  the  most  desirable  pupils  of  both  descriptions  left  on  this 
account.  But  there  were  other  drawbacks  to  the  College.  There  was  no 
instruction  in  modern  languages;  no  apparatus  connected  with  the  Phi- 
losophical department,  and  therefore  no  practical  instruction  in  physics;* 

several,  on  this  subject,  says,  "  we  met  by  common  consent  without  a  call 
from  any  body,"  "  no  body  could  have  prevented  our  meeting."  A'either  did 
I  stimulate  them  to  any  action  against  the  Bishop  or  Trustees;  quite  the 
contrary.  My  clients  and  all  within  my  influence  were  cautioned  against  it, 
and  several  of  them  have  since  given  me  memoraidums  of  the  words  made 
use  of  by  me.  I  certainly  did  read  the  documents,  and  answer  frankly  the 
questions  put  to  me  as  to  tlie  circumstances  ol  my  removal,  when  the  stu- 
dents called  upon  me;  but  by  what  rule  of  rectitude  or  honor  should  /  have  been 
restrained  from  so  doing?  If  the  removal  was  risht,  it  need  not  fear  exam- 
ination; if  wrong,  it  may  hope  in  vain,  to  avoid  it.  The  first  resoluiious 
passed  by  the  students,  were  pretty  severe  upon  the  Trustees;  and  it  was  on 
this  account  I  sent  for  Mr.  Lang,  who  had  been  chairman,  and  requested  him 
to  modify  them,  so  as  to  make  them  unexceptionable  to  all.  Yet  the  l^ishop 
speaking  of  this  action,  with  his  accustomed  candor,  says,  "  he  tried  to  get 
Bomething  of  the  kind  from  the  students,  but  in  trying  to  get  them  to  go  too 
far,  he  failed  in  getting  any  thing."  Perhaps  I  may  have  an  opportunity, 
hereafter,  of  cross  examining  some  of  the  Bishop's  witnesses  on  this  matter; 
we  shall  then  know  what  passed  in  the  meeting  of  the  students. 

•  Almost  the  oqly  good  article  of  philosophical  apparatus,  was  an  Atwood's 
machine,  made  in  New  York,  while  I  was  Professor  of  Natural  Philosophy 
in  the  New  York  University,  and  purchased  by  me  for  $200,  and  presented  to 
Kenyon  College.     It  was  my  intention  to  have  constructed,  by  the  labor  o 


35 

no  sufficient  labaratorj  or  apparatus  for  the  chemical  department ;  no 
systematic  collections  j  nor  any  of  the  incidental  means  and  appliances 
by  whicli  the  iiilen^st  of  college  students  is  ordinarily  excited  and  sus- 
tained. And  the  institution  suffered  in  proportion.  These  things  were 
constantly  mentioned  by  students  to  me,  as  grounds  of  objection,  however 
little  they  may  have  been  apprehended  in  that  light  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine 
and  his  counsellors. 

The  memorandum  goes  on  to  state,  in  substance,  that  the  young  men, 
in  consequence  of  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  President,  had  become 
disaffected  towards  the  institution,  and  wholly  indifferent  to  its  discipline. 
The  same  idea  is  paraphrased  with  some  improvement  on  page  16. 
*'  Dismission  had  litlle  terror,"  they  say,  because  it  inflicted  no 
penally.  Students  of  the  best  character  for  morals  and  study  left  the 
college,  promising  to  return  if  Mr  D.  should  resign,"  &.c.  These  alle- 
gations necessarily  imply  that  there  must  have  been  a  very  debased  state 
of  discipline  m  the  College  at  that  lime.  So  great  disaffection  must 
needs  have  been  accompanied  by  an  increased  amount  of  delinquency — 
frequent  irregularities,  and  disorders  of  a  grosser  kind  tending  toward 
diimission, — and  a  more  than  ordinary  number  of  actual  dismissals, 
or  voluntary  withdrawals.  I  think  I  am  right  in  saying  that  these  cir- 
cumstances are  necessarily  connected  in  the  mind  of  the  reader,  with 
the  facts  alleged  ;  so  that  if  the  former  are  shown  not  to  have  ex- 
isted, it  will  be  apparent  that  the  latter  cannot  be  true.  And  now  for  the 
proof. 

I  have  before  me  an  abstract  of  the  delinquencies  and  discipline  of  the 
College  lor  the  greater  part  of  the  time  of  my  Presidency  ;  from  which 
it  appears  that  during  the  term  in  which  I  was  dismissed,  there  was  not  a 
single  (o/ Acr)  dismission  in  the  College.  About  two-thirds  of  the  term 
had  transpired,  and  in  that  time  not  a  single  student  had  been  arraigned 
for  any  offence  whatever  ;  there  had  not  been  an  act  of  discipline  of  any 
kind,  even  so  much  as  a  private  admonition ;  nor  had  a  single  student 
left  the  College,  or  shown  the  least  disposition  to  leave  it  on  any  pretext 
whatever,  i  venture  to  say,  another  such  instance  cannot  be  found  in  all 
the  records  of  the  institution,  from  its  foundation  to  the  day  of  my  dis- 
missal. Again,  the  same  docmnent  shows,  in  the  most  conclusive 
manner,  that  so  far  from  there  being  a  debased  state  of  discipline,  the 
discipline  hud  never  been  higher.  There  had  been  a  regular  progressive 
improvement  in  that  respect,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  my  Presi- 
dency. Take,  as  an  exponent,  the  avv-rage  proportion  of  ordinary  de- 
linquencies, per  student,  for  a  term  of  13^  weeks.  In  the  latter  part  of 
1841,  this  average  was  11  ;  in  1842,  10  ;  in  1843,  it  was  reduced  to  6  ; 
and  in  the  beginning  of  1844^my  final  term — to  3^.  Or  take  the  pro- 
portion of  non-ddnquents*  during  a  like  term.  In  the  latter  part  of 
1841,  it  amounted  to  only  12  per  cent  of  the  whole  number  ol  College 
students  ;  in  the  latter  part  of  1842,  it  had  increased  to  40  per  cent  ;  in 
1843,  to  58  per  cent  ;  and  in  the  beginning  of  1844 — my  final  term,  it 
had  gone  up  to  69  per  cent.  The  assessments  for  damagi-s  also,  furnish 
instructive  evidence  to  the  same  effect.     In  the  summer  of  1842,  it  ave- 

selfsupporting  students,  a  working  laboratory  in  the  basement  of  the  Col- 
lege, and  to  have  made  by  the  same  means,  the  ordinary  articles  of  a  com- 
plete philosophical  apparatus.  Timber  for  this  laboratory  had  already  been 
cut  and  hauled  at  the  date  of  my  dismissal ;  and  with  good  seconding,  I  could 
have  had,  in  two  or  three  years,  the  means  of  iliustratins,  in  a  very  satisfac- 
tory manner,  the  whole  course  of  physics,  without  any  outlay  of  money 
worthy  of  consideration. 

•  Those  who  had  no  (unexcused)  delinqaencies,  or  not  more  than  two  du. 
ring  the  term. 


raged  from  ^l.SQ  to  ^2.00  per  student,  (making  proportion  for  a  term  of 
13J  weeks),  whereas,  in  1844 — my  final  term — it  was  only  about  une- 
foarth  that  amount. 

As  to  the  number  of  students  leaving  the  College,  by  dismissal  or  oth- 
erwise, without  taking  a  degree  :  There  had  left  in  this  way,  within 
one  year  previous  to  the  date  of  my  removal,  16  persons — about  37  per 
cent  of  the  whole  average  number  of  students  tor  that  year.  This  pro- 
portion may  seem  large  to  those  who  are  chiefly  conversant  with  eastern 
colleges,  but  it  is  by  no  means  extraordinary  in  the  west,  in  "  where  the 
nature  and  value  of  a  regular  systematic  education,"  the  Bishop  tells  us, 
"  have  yet,  in  a  great  measure,  to  be  learned."  I  could  identity  a  single 
year  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  Presidency  at  Gambler,  in  which  the  propor- 
tion thus  leaving  was  64  percent  of  the  average  whole  number,  and  a  series 
of  four  years  in  succession,  in  which  it  was  more  than  50  per  cent.  For 
10  years  before  I  went  there,  it  averaged  40  per  cent.  Finally,  in 
1839-'40,  the  two  years  before  my  going  there,  the  number  thus  leaving 
was  greater  than  the  number  entering, — and  the  whole  number  who  left, 
including  graduates,  more  than  double  that  number. 

But  the  gravamen  of  this  part  of  the  memorandum  is,  that  /in  particu- 
lar was  the  author  of  a  harsh  and  relentless  system  of  discipline;  that  I 
was  distinguished  above  all  the  Faculty  in  this  respect  so  as  to  be  notori- 
ous among  the  students,  and  that  I  was  regarded  by  them,  in  consequence, 
as  an  object  of  peculiar  dread  and  dislike.  The  lalsity  of  this  allegation 
in  substance,  has  been  already  shown.  It  seems  to  be  connected  iii  the 
Reply  with  the  idea  of  an  inordinate  number  of  disniissals,  of  which  I  was 
understood  to  be  the  author.     Let  us  again  look  at  the  facts. 

During  the  term  in  which  I  was  dismissed  there  was,  as  I  have  said 
no  other  dismissal.  In  all  the  preceding  term  there  were  but  two 
— gross  and  aggravated  cases  of  habitual  delinquency  and  idleness, 
and  so  regarded  by  the  Faculty  unanimously.  In  the  long  v.ication  of 
1843  one  person  was  dismissed  by  the  Faculty  for  a  violent  assault  upon 
a  fellow  student,  and  refusing  lo  pledge  himself  not  to  repeat  it,  besides 
other  irregularities.*        Finally,  in  the  summer  term  of  1S43,  there  were 

*  There  was,  however,  in  the  Institution  at  that  time  a  clique  of  young 
men,  (alluded  lo  in  my  former  statement)  in  regard  to  whom  it  was  urged 
in  the  most  impressive  terms,  more  than  once,  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  that 
they  ought  all  to  be  sent  away.  Their  general  habits  and  character,  were 
said  to  be  derogatory  to  the  character  of  the  College,  and  likely  to  hinder 
exemplary  young  men  of  Ohio  and  its  vicinity  from  joining  it.  But  there 
was  a  private  consideration  also.  He  insisted,  (without  the  slightest  evi- 
dence however,)  that  it  was  they  who  had  made  some  attempts  upon  his 
orchard,  and  said  he  had  loaded  his  guu  for  them  in  case  they  ciime  again — 
an  instructive  example  of"  that  influence  which  commands  obedience  at  the 
same  time  that  it  warns  and  enlists  instead  of  chilling  and  repelling  the  affec- 
tions of  the  heart."  Prof.  Sandels  also,  leavina  home  in  the  course  of  the  va- 
cation, made  a  point  of  calling  upon  me  to  give  his  vote  for  ihe  unqualified 
[dismissal  of  these  young  men.  They  were  not  dismissed  however.  Circum- 
stances, with  which  I  had  no  connection,  except  as  their  patron  and  lii  nd, 
suggested  their  withdrawal  from  the  Institution  and  they  were  allowed  to 
withdraw,  without  the  degradation  of  an  actual  dismissal,  except  in  the  one 
case  mentioned.  It  was  some  of  the  persons  connected  with  this  clique 
who  are  referred  to  as  being  personally  friendly  to  me,  and  at  the  same  time 
dissatisfied  with  my  "ways  and  modes"  of  government ;  and  again,  "as 
students  of  the  best  character  for  morals  and  study,  who  "  left  College  for 
the  same  reason."  Their  competency  to  judge  in  such  a  matter,  as  well  as 
their  "  character  for  morals  and  study,"  may  be  estimated  from  the  following 
data  :  They  were  all,  except  one,  Freshmen  ;  all,  without  exception,  of  low 
standing  in  their  classes;  all,  more  or  less,  exceptionable  in  conduct,  not 
having  been  matriculated,  after  a  year's  probation,  except  one,  and  he  had 
been  degraded  again.  Finally,  they  had  all  been  dismissed  but  a  short  time 


37 

two  dismissals  and  one  expulsion,  clear  and  unquestionable  cases,  in  re- 
gard to  which  there  was  not  the  slij^litest  difference  of  Oj^inion  in  the 
Faculty.  The  whole  number  of  aclual  dismissals,  then,  during  a  year 
preceding  my  own,  was  but  six — certainly  not  a  very  inordinate  number 
— not  more  tlian  li  id  been  dismissed  in  a  single  term  under  Bishop  Mc- 
Ilvaine's  presidency,  and  less  than  one-third  the  number  peremptorily 
disposed  of  in  a  single  act  of  the  Faculty,  during  the  winter  of  1842-3, 
wiih  the  unanimous  apjjroval  of  the  Board  of  Trust*(es. 

But  on  what  ground  and  by  whom  was  1  held  up  as  the  specialand  par- 
ticular author  o(  these  dismissals,  or,  in  fact,  of  any  dismissal  ?  Dismis- 
sals, and  all  other  specific  punishments,  were  awarded  by  the  Faculty 
— a  deliberative  body.  The  President  neither  moved  in  them,  nor  voted, 
except  when  there  was  a  tie;  and  the  records  will  show  that,  so  far  from 
there  being  a  lie  in  either  of  the  instances,  referred  to,  there  was  not  even 
a  single  dissenting  voice.  I  appeal  with  confidence  to  those  records;  I 
appeal  to  every  member  ol  the  Facully;  I  pledge  myself  to  prove,  by  the 
testimony  of  Professor  .Sandels  himself,  if  I  should  ever  be  so  fortunate 
as  to  catch  him  upon  the  witnesses  stand  in  any  Court  of  Record,  that  the 
attempt  to  fix  upon  me  in  particular  the  authorship  of  these  dismissals  or 
of  any  dismissals  that  occurred  during  my  Presidency,  is  a  base  and 
barefaced  slander.  An  instance  cannot  be  named  in  which  I  ever  went 
beyond  the  Faculty  in  my  views  of  punishment,  whilst  there  were  repeated 
instances  in  which  the  severity  o{ their  views  was  restiainod  and  mitiga- 
ted by  me.*  But  it  is  said  that  the  students,  in  point  of  fact,  did  particu- 
larize me,  regarding  me  as  the  author  of  harsh  discipline,  and  finding  no 
fault,  in  this  respect,  "with  any  one  but  the  President."  If  this  allegation 
were  true  (which  it  is  not)  I  would  ask,  who  taught  ihem  thus  to  regard  me. 
The  deliberations  of  the  Faculty  were  secret  and  confidential;  how  and  by 
whom  were  the  students  tanghl  to  refer  to  any  particular  individual  the  res- 
ponsibility of  our  corporate  acts  ?  The  answer  is  not  a  difficult  one,  it  was 
pretty  well  understood  long  before  my  removal, and  by  others  probably  soon- 
er and  belter  than  by  myself,  (hat  there  was  a  lobby  intercourse  kept  up  be- 
tween the  author  of  this  slanderous  allegation  and  a  portion  of  the  students, 
by  which  false  impressions  were  constantly  disseminated  among  the  lat- 
ter in  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Faculty.  It  was  notorious  that  while 
no  one  of  that  body  was  more  generally  harsh  and  severe  in  his  judgment 
of  the  students,  or  more  ready  to  propose  vindictive  and  severe  measures, 
thanthft  Professor  of  Languages;  he  invariably  managed  to  be  regarded, 
even  by  the  persons  who  were  the  subjects  of  those  measures,  as  their  zea- 
lous advocate  and  friend;  while  others  who,  in  repealed  instances,  were 

before  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Faculty — unanimously  approved  by  the 
Board  of  Trustees — and  only  restored  again  through  my  instrumentality. 
It  is  not  possible  that  the  reason  mentioned  for  leaving  the  College  could  have 
been  given  by  any  one  whose  judgment  in  such  a  matter  cannot  be  proved  to 
be  utterly  worthless. 

•Had  it  not  been  for  my  interposition,  in  the  spring  of  1SA2,  the  whole 
Senior  class  would  have  been  dismissed.  Prof.  Sandels  was  m  favor  of  it, 
but  it  was  opposed  by  me,  and  by  pursuing  the  course  suggested  by  myself, 
I  was  enabled  to  save  the  class,  without  compromising  th^  dignity  of  the  In- 
stitution. The  papers  on  this  subject  are  now  before  me.  Had  I  been  left 
at  liberty  to  pursue  the  same  course  (suggested,  again  by  me,)  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  holiday  outbreak  in  the  winter  of  1842-3,  viz  :  to  assemble  the  stu- 
dents concerned,  and  reason  the  matter  with  them  on  principle  ;  the  Faculty 
would  not  have  been  obliged,  as  they  were,  to  dismiss  19  undergraduates  in 
one  hatch  Nor  would  they  have  had  the  opportunity  to  take  back  13  or  14 
of  that  number,  on  acknowledgment,  if  I  had  not  ultimately  pursued  that 
course,  on  my  own  responsibility.  For  all  which  I  have,  in  addition  to  other 
evidenceS|  the  assurance  of  the  parties  themselves. 


38 

most  reluctant  to  yield  even  to  the  claims  of  discipline,  and  never  did  yield 
exccfit  when  \\\o^e  claims  were  clearly  paramount,  were  represented  as 
harsli  and  overbearing.  With  (his  malign  inlluence  thus  ojierating  against 
me,  and  all  the  other  agencies,  of  which  1  have  spoken,  busil\  engaged 
through  the  winter  in  exciting  the  minds  of  the  students  against  my  "  ways 
and  modes"  of  government,  it  is  not  so  much  a  matter  ol  surprise  that  there 
should  have  been  some  thus  excited,  as  that  there  should  have  been  so  few. 

It  still  remains  to  say  a  word  or  two  about  those  not  yet  fully  accounted 
for,  who  left  the  College,  within  the  year  beiore  my  dismissal,  voluntari- 
ly. Of  these,  one  left  on  account  of  sickness,  and  having  lost  much  time, 
finally  concluded  not  to  return — expressing,  however,  as  it  happens,  the 
fullest  confidence  in  the  President  and  most  of  the  Faculty.  Another  was 
withdrawn  by  advice  of  his  patron.  Prof.  Sandels,  for  reasons  to  me  un- 
known. Another  left  on  account  of  inability  to  meet  his  bills,  and  all  the 
rest  on  account  of  utter  and  hopeless  inability  to  get  on  with  their  studies. 
But  there  were  many  others,  the  memorandum  goes  on  to  state,  that 
"  would  go  away  if  their  parents  would  let  them,"  while,  in  the  very 
next  sentence,  we  are  inlormed,  that  on  account  of  the  bad  reputation  of 
the  College  under  my  Presidency,  parents  were  prevented  from  sending 
their  sons.  Parents  must  have  been  very  perverse  if  both  these  allega 
tions  are  true;  but  what  shall  be  said  of  ihe  reasoning  which  draws  from 
both  alike  an  argument  against  me  ?  Surely,  if  the  sentiment  of  the 
parent  is  good  against  me  in  one  case  it  ought  to  be  good  in  my  favor 
in  the  other,  and  with  greater  weight  too:  since  those  who  had  their 
sons  in  the  College  may  be  supposed  to  have  had  a  better  knowledge  of 
its  affairs,  and  a  higher  responsibility  in  what  they  did  than  those  who  had 
not.  But  the  truth  is,  both  allegations,  in  any  sense  that  would  in  the 
slightest  degree  implicate  my  administration,  are  utterly  groundless.  That 
there  may  have  been  students  restrained  from  leaving  the  College, by  their 
parents,  is  not  improbable;  it  is  more  or  less  the  case  in  all  Colleges,  but 
it  was  at  Kenyon,  as  elsewhere,  a  strife  between  the  better  judgment  of 
the  parent,  and  the  idle,  undutiful,  insubordinate  spirit  of  the  son,  without 
any  personal  reference  to  the  President  or  any  other  officer.  Of  the  sen- 
timent of  the  students,  as  a  body,  towards  myself,  I  have  already  spoken 
and  may  have  occasion  to  sf>eak  again.  With  regard  to  that  of  the  pa- 
rents, a  single  statistical  fact  will  show  that  it  could  not  have  been  very 
adverse.  The  average  number  of  students  entering  College  during  the 
three  years  of  my  Presidency,  was  26  per  annum ;  and  during  the  two  pre- 
ceding years,  under  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  Presidency,  only  12  per  annuni. 
If  parents  were  really  unwilling  to  send  their  sons  then  in  1841-2  and  3, 
what  must  they  have  been,  according  to  this  statement,  (which  is  docu- 
mentary) in  1839-40  .''  But  by  what  right,  with  what  color  of  decency,  I 
may  say,  do  these  secret  presenters — a  foreigner,  a  young  and  inexperi- 
enced tutor,  and  an  undergraduate — presume,  if  they  really  did  presume, 
to  expound  the  sentiments  of  parents,  scattered,  as  the  patrons  of  the  In- 
stitution were,  over  the  whole  United  States  ?  I  have  before  me  the  re- 
sults of  a  large  and  extensive  correspondence  with  parents  and  with  (he 
friends  and  patrons  of  the  Institution  generally,  including  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Trustees;  and  1  pledge  myself  to  draw  from  them  at 
least  ten  clear  and  unequivocal  testimonials  of  approbation  and  confidence 
for  each  single  allegation  of  the  least  value,  (of  a  date  prior  to  the  28th 
Feb.,  1844,)  that  the  Bishop  and  his  abettors  can  produce  from  the  same 
source  a  gainst  me. 

The  last  count  of  the  Bishop's  indictment  implies  that  there  was  a 
deep,  radical,  and  irrec^ncileable  misunderstanding  between  myself  and 
the  Faculty  ;  the  latter  having  given  up  the  government  almost  wholly 
into  my  hands,  "from  a  wish  to  avoid  unpleasant  difficulties' '  with  me,  and 
"  with  no  hope  or  prospect  of  any  amendment."  This,  lifie  the  other  items 


39 

of  this  precious  document,  stands,  you  will  recollect,  upon  the  single 
averment  of  Professor  Sandels.  The  Bishop  might  have  obtained  the 
opinions  of  all  the  olBcers  in  particular,  but  this  probably  did  not  consist 
with  his  views  of"  delicacy  and  caution."  He  did  not  even  consult  the 
older  and  more  expeiienced  of  the  Professors.  On  this  as  on  the  other 
points,  the  same  inexperienced  Tutor, — the  same  htad  ol  the  Giammar 
iSchool,  half  a  mile  distant, — and  the  same  undergraduate,  were  his  only 
consultants,  besides  the  Professor  of  Latin  and  Greek  ;  and  even  these, 
were  not  called  upon  to  verify  the  record.  The  language  made  use 
of  implies  an  entire  and  hopeless  diversity  between  the  Faculty  and 
myself  ;  a  determination,  on  ray  pait,  to  carry  out  my  own  particu- 
lar views,  in  opposition  to  the  corporate  sentiment,  and  a  giving  up  of  ihe 
matter,  on  theirs,  in  opposition  to  their  better  judgment,  ior  the  mere 
sake  of  peace. 

Let  me  pause  a  moment  here  to  consider  the  weight  which  this  allega- 
tion ought  to  have  as  an  argument  against  me,  supposing  it  true.  If  the 
Faculty  of  Kenyon  College  had  been,  as  the  faculties  of  most  colleges 
are — men  of  liberal  education  and  mature  experience,  thoroughly  ver.-ed 
in  the  administration  and  discipline  of  colleges — I  myself  being  at  the 
same  time,  comparatively,  young  and  inexperienced, — 1  grant  you  that 
a  wide  difference  of  opinion  between  them  and  me  in  regard  to  the 
administration  of  the  College  would  have  been  a  fair  subject  for  m- 
vestigalion  ;  and  the  attempt  to  carry  out  my  particular  views  with- 
out such  investigation,  indelicate  and  improper.  But  even  then,  the 
subject  of  difference  would  have  been  entitled  to  a  fair  hearing,  on  its 
merits.  The  real  case,  however,  was  widely  different  from  that  here 
supposed.  So  far  from  the  Faculty  standing  u6otje  me  in  the  particulars 
mentioned,  (1  suppose  I  may  say  without  arrogance,  what  nobody  pre- 
tends to  call  in  question),  they  were  greatly  behind  me  in  academic  ex- 
perience and  education,  as  well  as  ia  age.  They  had  been  collected 
together  as  an  academic  body,  in  haste,  (in  1840)  to  meet  a  particular 
exigency  ;  and  were  all,  except  myself,  as  to  college  matters,  notoriously 
and  confessedly  new  men  ;  perfectly  inexperienced  in  the  "  ways  and 
modes"  of  college  administration.*  Of  the  four  Professors,  I  was  the 
only  one  who  had  been  educated  in  a  college  at  all  ;  the  only  one  who 
had  been  trained  to  any  consideraDle  extent  in  other  departments  of  a 
college  course,  besides  his  own  ;  the  only  one  who  had  been  connected 
with  the  administration  of  any  college,  before  Kenyon.  Professor  Ross, 
who  was  by  far  the  most  efficient  and  accomplished  among  them  as  an 
instructor,  was  yet  a  cadet  when  I  occupied  the  princijial  chair  of  Ma- 
thematics at  West  Point  ;  and  when  nominated  by  me  to  his  present  Pro- 
fessorship at  Gambler,  confessed  bis  entire  want  of  acquaintance  with  the 
cdministration  of  colleges.  Professor  Sandels  had  been  Tutor  a  little 
while  in  Kenyon  while  studying  for  orders  in  1839-40,  and  that  was  all 
his  previous  experience  Professor  Thrall  was  a  respectable  west  country 
physician.  None  of  these  had  received  an  academic  degree  of  any 
kind,  (there  were  in  fact  but  two  graduated  out  of  six  or  seven  members 
of  the  whole  Faculty,)  before  my  arrival.  Under  such  circumstances, 
had  there  been  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Faculty  and  myself,  I 
submit  to  every  candid  and  ingenuous  mind,  whether  it  ought  to  have 
been  taken  even  as  prima /acte evidence  against  me  ;  much  less  (as  the 
Bishop  would  have  it  considered)  a  ground  final  and  conclusive,  for  my 
peremptory  dismissal, — without  so  much  as  a  question  asked  about  the 
merits  of  the  matter  in  debate. 

•  I  am  far  from  wishing  to  disparage  any  gentleman  connected  with  the 
Faculty  by  these  statements  ;  they  are  however  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  the 
very  facts  on  which  Bishop  Mcllvaine  rested  his  most  urgent  appeals  to 
hasten  my  arrival  at  Gambler  in  the  fall  of  1840. 


40 

But  there  was  no  such  difference.  The  Faculty  and  myself  were  upon 
the  most  amicable  fooling;,  in  all  respects.  So  far  from  any  attempt  on 
ray  part  to  overbear  Ihem,  there  had  not  been  (he  slightest  disagreement 
or  dissention  of  any  kind  in  our  deliberations  for  more  than  a  year.*  No 
deliberative  body  could  have  been  more  perfectly  harmonious  ;  they  (in 
their  corporate  character,)  exercising  without  let  or  hindrance  from 
me,  all  the  powers  which  a  Faculty  ever  does  exercise  ;  and  constantly 
of  their  own  free  will  referring  to  me  all  sorts  of  discretionary  matters  ; 
and  all,  to  human  appearance  in  perfect  harmony  and  good  will.  The 
assertion  that  I  had  private  and  particular  ends  to  carry  out  in  opposition 
to  the  common  weal,  is  most  unjust.  I  venture  to  say  there  is  not  one  of 
the  I- acuity  who  will  pretend  to  have  come  near  me  in  the  devotion  of 
himself,  his  ease  and  comlbrl,  and  the  comfort  of  his  family,  lo  the  pro- 
motion of  the  common  interest.  All  the  experience  of  my  early  life  had 
been  a  school  of  esprit  de  corps  to  me,  and  it  is  not  very  likely  that  I 
should  have  forgotten  its  lessons  when  called  to  preside  over  a  seminary 

•  The  only  occasion  of  disagreement  in  the  Faculty  during  all  my  Presi 
dency  were  three,  all  occurring  in  the  year  1842,  and  all,  as  I  am  now  well 
assured,  ccinected  with  certain  polilical  movements  on  the  Hill,  of  which  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  speak  hereafter.  I  will  briefly  state  the  occasions, 
that  it  may  be  seen  how  far  ray  claims,  to  confidence  as  President  of  thf  Col- 
lege, were  forfeited  by  the  rule  or  mode  of  my  action,  in  either  case.  First 
— the  right  of  the  President  to  convene  the  Faculty  during  \  acation  .'  That 
body  having  been  thus  convened,  on  business  of  importance,  the  President's 
right  in  this  particular  was  unexpectedly  mooted  and  coniested  with  some 
asperity  by  one  of  the  Professors.  He  was  not  sustained  however  by  the 
Faculty,  and  in  an  amicable  conversation  some  time  after  I  succeeded  in 
showing  him  that  it  was  not  an  unusual  or  improper  exercise  of  the  Presi- 
dential power.  Secondly — on  a  question,  whether  or  not  to  have  an  after, 
noon  recitation  in  all  the  classes,  it  was  desired  by  some  of  the  Professors,  and 
clai  net  as  a  prescriptive  right  by  one,  to  have  all  his  particular  recitations 
arranged  in  the  morning  hours,  by  which  one  of  the  classes  was  sul)jected  to 
the  inconvenience  of  having  its  three  recitations  crowded  together  between 
eight  and  twelve  in  tne  morning.  As  the  evils  of  this  arrangement  were 
very  conspicuous,  and  had  been  greatly  complained  of,  I  took  upon  me  to 
represent  and  urge  somewhat  strongly  the  interests  of  the  College  in  this 
particular,  and  in  taking  the  question,  for  the  first  and  only  time  during  my 
Presidency,  I  exercised  the  right  given  me  by  the  laws,  of  calling  for  a 
two-thirds  vole.  It  went  against  me,  and  T  gave  it  up  ;  but  I  claim  that 
the  position  taken  was  a  proper  one,  properly  insisted  upon,  and  perfectly 
disinterested.  Thirdly — a  proposition  made  by  me  to  adopt  an  uniform  sys- 
tem of  class  marks,  with  a  view  to  the  more  equitable  distribution  of  the 
College  honors,  was  resisted  somewhat  warmly  by  one  of  the  Faculty,  as 
tending  to  bring  them  (the  Professors)  unduly  into  subjectiveness  to  the  Pre- 
sident. The  objection  was  not  sustained,  I  believe  by  any  of  the  Faculty. 
Most  of  them  were  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  system  propo  ed,  and  after  a 
few  weeks  delay,  the  dissentient  himself  conceded  his  objections,  and  it  was 
unanimously  adoi)ted. 

All  these  instances  occurred  within  a  month  of  each  other,  in  1842;  and 
were  connected,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  with  a  secret  movement  of  that 
period,  having  for  its  object  to  detach  the  Bishop  from  myself,  and  connect 
him  in  a  coalition  with  his  quondam  enemies.  It  placed  almost  every  body 
on  the  Hill  for  the  time  in  a  false  position,  and  am(!ng  the  rest  created  for  a 
brief  period  an  estrangement  between  Professor  Ross  and  myself;  and  it 
was  then  that  he  expressed  his  intention  to  have  left  "  the  Hill"  in  case 
Bishop  Mcllvaine  had  removed  to  Cincinnati,  (Reply,  p.  35).  Professor 
Ross  and  myself,  however,  had  been  too  long  and  intimately  associated  to 
be  long  estranged  ;  I  sought  an  early  occasion  for  mutual  explanations,  and 
the  good  understanding  then  effectually  restored,  was  not  afterwards  inter- 
rupted again  during  all  my  residence  at  Gambler. 


41 

of  leaminof.  The  facts  woulfl  show  that  I  did  not  forget  tliem  ;  ray  in6u- 
enrp  and  %'i<rilanre  "ere  constantly  employed  in  smoothing  little  matters 
of  disagreement  among  the  olficers  themselves,  and  whenever  the  com- 
mon interest  was  assailed  or  threatened  from  any  quarter,  I  was  ihe  first 
and  often  the  only  one  lo  stand  forth — no  mailer  at  what  hazaid,  in  its 
defence.* 

Finally,  my  private  and  personal  intercourse  with  the  members  of  the 
Faculty  was  unmarked  by  any  external  circumstances  indicating  the 
slightest  want  of  fiiendliness  or  confideiice.  With  all  of  them,  without 
a  single  exception,  it  was  cordial,  familiar,  and  [apparently]  confiden- 
iial ;  characterized,  in  all  the  relations  of  neigliboihood  and  society,  by 
the  habitual  interchange  of  kind  and  friendly  otfices.  1  know  very  well 
that  these  external  signs  are  not  proof  positive  that  I  had,  in  point  ol  fact, 
"  the  confidence  of  the  Faculty,"  and  especially  as  oke  at  least,  in 
whom  these  sisrns  were  all  very  conspicuous,  is  now  known  to  have  been 
at  the  same  time  an  active  co-operator  in  a  plot  to  destroy  me.  But  while 
I  confess  with  sorrow  thai  my  confidence  in  human  chaiacter  is  somewhat 
unsettled  by  this  instance  o(  ba.seness,  1  am  by  no  means  yet  prepared  to 
give  it  up  entirely.  I  would  rather  be  the  dupe  of  an  occasional  decep- 
tion than  obliged  to  live  in  continual  su-picion — regarding  all  kindness, 
all  courtesy,  and  all  sympathy,  as  hollow,  deceptive,  and  insincere. 

Such  was  the  matter  and  the  manner  of  the  secret  investigation,  on  Ihe 
grounds  of  which  Bishop  McHvaine  proceeded  without  turlher  in(|uiry, 
lo  convoke  the  Board  of  Trustees.  It  was  not  necessary,  he  tells  us,  [p. 
9,]  to  have  any  comfnunication  with  the  President  on  the  subject,  since 
the  question  whether  we  were  running  into  debt  to  sn-.lain  the  College, 
was  one  which  never  troubled  Mr.  D.  It  miirht  be  asked  how  Mr.  S^m- 
dels,  an  unnaturalized  foreigner  ;  and  Mr.  Gibbs,  a  Presbyterian  Theo- 
logical student  ;  and  Mr.  Lang,  an  undergraduate,  came  to  be  so  much 
more  deeplv  interested  in  the  pecuniary  welfare  of  the  Institution  than 
the  President.  The  latter  had  been  for  years  regarded,  wherever  he  was 
known,  as  one  of  the  firmest  friends  of  Kenvon  College  :  He  had  taken 
an  active  part  in  the  e  iternrize  for  paying  off  the  debt  ;  and  no  one  listen- 
ed more  joyfully  to  the  Bishop's  account  of  Ihe  success  of  that  enter- 
prise.j  Who  could  have  supposed  ihal  Ihe  consummation  of  that  success, 
when  the  debt,  with  its  heavy  burden  of  interest,  amounting  to  more  than 
two  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  had  just  been  extinguished, — was  an 
orcasion  of  financial  difBcidly  and  alarm  .'  I  conversed  with  Bishop  Mc- 
Ilvdine  on  Ihe  financial  slate  of  the  Institution  several  times,  and  with 
more  than  ordinary  familiarity  after  the  6lh  of  fanuaiy.     He  answered  all 

•  I  misht  mention  several  instances  of  this,  in  connection  with  the  relations 
of  the  Faculty  to  the  Aaent,  Mr.  White.  In  the  spring  of  1S43,  for  instance, 
a  proposition  was  passed  ronnJ  among  the  Professors,  to  resisn  en  vtosse  on 
account  of  an  alleged  impertinence  on  his  part  I  was  prohably  the  on'y 
person  who  discouraged  the  movement  on  our  part  on  pnncfp/c  ;  an'l  at  the 
same  time  the  only  one  who  went  forward  lo  assort  the  honor  and  dignity 
of  the  Facu'ty,  in  a  personal  remonstrance  with  Mr.  White — incurring  in 
no  small  degree  ihe  "  unpopulality''  of  that  individual  fo  so  doing. 

I  I  iipijpvp  t  '-^n  l"^  shown  thai  in  proportion  to  my  means,  T  have  been 
the  largest  donor  to  Kenyon  College.  My  donations  prior  to  1S34,  in  appa- 
ralu  I  '  '•  ••  n  l>ase  I  expressly  A)r  the  Institution,  and  amounting  to 
between  3  and  400  dollars  in  cash,  were  thought  worthy  of  honorable  iren- 
tion  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine  in  his  address  to  the  Convention  of  thai  year.  Yet 
now  by  a  mfie  change  of  polarity  in  himself,  he  is  pleased  to  represent  roe 
as  destitute  of  all  concern  in  Ih"  pecuniary  prosperity  of  the  Institution  ;  and 
would,  if  he  conlH.bv  n  toach  of  his  potent  rhetoric  dissipate  all  my  claims  lo 
confidence  in  this  respect. 

5 


42 

tny  questions  with  apparent  frankness  and  cordiality,  but  he  g^ve  me  no 
information,  not  the  slightest  hint,  of  the  '*  alarming"  state  of  things, 
which  he  now  says  was  ihe  ground  work  of  these  secret  proceedings. 
Such  an  intimation,  1  liesilate  not  to  say,  would  have  been  most  strange 
and  incongruous.*  He  spoke  of  calling  the  Board  of  Trustees  together, 
as  if  their  action  was  necessar}  in  the  disposition  of  the  funds  collected 
by  him,  and  advised  me  in  the  most  affable  and  friendly  manner  to  make 
out  and  present  my  accounts,  [the  very  accounts  for  disbursements  against 
which  he  now  declaims  so  loudly,]  prumisi7ig  to  give  me  a  good  commit- 
tee to  examine  and  report  upon  them.  Such  was  his  countenance  to  me 
during  that  interval,  and  yet  he  was  at  the  same  time,  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a  doubt,  meditating— aye,  actually  working  out — my  dismissal 
from  the  Presidency.  For  what  else,  by  his  own  showing,  was  the  Board 
assembled  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  his  exhortation  to  them  before  act- 
ing, [p.  10,]  and  his  approval  afterwaids  [p.  12],  if  such  was  not  his  deli- 
bente  purpose  .''  But  there  is  even  more  direct  evidence  than  this.  The 
call  for  the  meeting  of  the  Trustees  was  published  in  the  Gambier  pa|)er 
about  the  middle  of  January.  A  few  days  after  its  appeaiance,  the 
Bishop's  son,  who  was  then  spending  much  of  his  time  in  the  College, 
was  asked  for  what  purpose  the  Board  was  called  together.''  "  To  remove 
Presiden'  Douglas,"  was  the  prompt  reply;  and  the  reasons  being  asked, 
were  given,  viz.  l\\e  fiscal  difficulties  of  the  Institution,  with  much  of  the 
same  declamation  as  in  "  the  Reply  ;"  but  not  a  word  about  unpopu- 
larity wiih  the  students. 

With  regard  to  the  Trustees,  I  must  caution  you  not  to  form  any  estimate 
of  them  from  what  you  have  been  accustomed  to  see  of  College  trustees 
in  the  East.  There,  at  least  in  the  cases  with  which  you  are  most  con- 
versant, the  selection  of  such  functionaries  is  governed  by  some  little  re- 
gard to  the  nature  of  the  trust,  and  the  infinite  importance  of  the  great 
end  to  which  it  is  consecrated;  at  Gambier,  however,  since  1840,  the 
primary  qualification  has  been  subserviency  to  the  Bishop.  Although 
elected  ostensibly  by  the  Convention,  they  a^e  virtually  appointed  by  him; 
and  with  due  care,  sifhce  the  date  mentioned,  that  no  one  is  appointed 
who  is  not  ready  to  square  all  his  ideas,  whatever  they  are,  in  accordance 
with  the  Bishop's.  Formerly  it  was  not  so.  The  Board  had  some  de- 
gree of  independence;  appointed  their  own  prudential  committee,  for  the 
management  of  the  domain,  kc;  and  in  1838,  they  even  went  so  far — 
the  Bishop  being  absent — as  to  define  the  relative  powers  of  the  Board 
and  its  President  in  the  mana<;ement  of  the  property.  He  assembled 
Ihein,  however,  immediately  on  his  return,  and  compelled  them  lo  re- 
sejnd  all  that  they  had  done.f  Nor  did  he  stop,  till  in  the  Convention 
of  1839  he  succeeded  in  transferring,  by  a  change  in  the  Constitution,  the 
whole  discretionary  power,  which  had  hitherto  been  exercised  by  the 
prudential  committee,  exelunively  and  permanently  to  himself.  Final- 
ly, in  1840,  a  ''new  Board  and  a  right  Board"  was  elected  upon  his  no- 
mination, and  since  then  the  Tru-tees  have  had  little  to  do  but  to  pass 
and  record  {he  fiat  of  Bijshop  Mcllvaine. 

Intelligence  and  liberality  under  such  a  system  were  not  needed;  they 
might  even  be  objeqtionable;  and  the  Bishop's  policy,  as  he  distinctly 

•  I  well  renlember,  however,  that  a  note  on  this  key  was  touched  by  Mr. 
Wing,  before  the  Bishop  returned  from  New  York;  and  by  Mr.  Sandels  a 
little  after,  vefy  enigmatical  to  me  at  the  time,  but  now  well  understood. 
Yet  Mr.  San:iels'  salary  had  been  raised  from  $600to$800,  only  a  few  months 
before,  while  the  success  of  the  Bishop's  efforts  in  raising  money  was  yet 
uncertain. 

t  The  verification  of  this  statement  will  be  found  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  of  March  21,  Sept.  4,  and  Nov.  22,  1838. 


43 

avowed  to  me  in  1842,  having  been  to  keep  them  away  as  much  as  pos- 
sible from  Gambier,  they  were  consequently  very  ignorant  of  the  actual 
condition,  as  well  as  of  the  wants  and  netessilies  of  the  College.*  Ihe 
constitutional  time  for  their  annual  meeting  was  at  commencement,  but 
it  was  so  managed  during  all  my  presidency,  in  spite  of  my  remonstran- 
ces, that  they  never  did  meet  on  that  occasion.  There  were  in  fact  but 
two  meetings  (at  Gambier)  from  first  to  last,  and  those  in  the  middle  of 
the  long  vacation.  Not  an  individual  member  of  the  Board  had  ever 
been  present  at  any  one  of  the  college  examinations;  nor  did  they  on 
other  occasions  appear  to  lake  interest  in  its  affairs,  as  a  seminary  of 
learning;  and  the  natural,  as  well  as  the  most  charitable  conclusiou  was, 
that  they  really  did  not  know  what  interest  it  was  proper  for  them  to 
take.     Such  was  the  constituency  of  Kenyon  College. f 

The  members  of  the  board  arrived  from  their  remote  places  of  resi- 
dence, generally  on  the  evening  of  the  27th  of  February.  On  all  former 
occasions,  my  house,  which  had  become  a  sort  of  hotel,  was  the  usual 
slopping  place  (or  four  or  five  of  their  number,  and  was  now  accordingly 
prepared  ibr  their  reception  again — but  nobody  came.  Three  of  my  ha- 
bitual guests.  Burr,  Bury  and  Allen,  absented  themselves  from  llie  meet- 
ing, and  Mr.  Smallwood  came  and  excused  himself  on  the  following 
morning,  having  been  invited  some  weeks  beforehand  to  stay  with  Mr. 
Blake'.  Prof.  Ross  and  Prof.  Thrall  also  expecUd  guests,  bui  were  like 
myself,  disappointed.  The  whole  Board,  was  billetled  upon  the  Bi.shop, 
Mr.  Blake,  Mr.  Sandels,  Mr.  Wing,  and  Mr.  White — generally  two  at 
each  place — leaving  Dr.  Fuller,  Prof.  Ross,  Prof.  Thrall  and  myself, 
vacant. 

The  business  of  the  session  commenced  in  form  on  the  morning  of  the 
28th.  The  Bishop,  having  read  to  them,  iis  he  tells  us,  the  "  exhibit"  of 
the  "  Treasurer,  "  by  which  it  appeared  that  the  receipts  were  expected  to 
"  fall  alarmingly  short  of  expenses  that  year,"  then  said,  "  this  is  your 
*'  first  information  of  the  business  for  which  I  have  Cdlied  vou.  We  are 
*'  more  than  ever  under  solemn  obligations  to  avoid  any  further  debts. 
"  We  must  make  any  sacrifices  to  do  so.  You  see  the  present  prospect; 
"  you  are  called  to  inquire  into  the  causes  and  remedy  of  this  deficiency. 
"  I  have  made  inquiries,  and  formed  an  opinion,  but  you  shall  not  know 
"anything  that  1  have  learned,  or  what  1  think  on  the  subject."  Here 
was  a  riddle  indeed — "  the  causes  and  the  remedy  of  (his  [alleged]  defi- 
ciency," (the  dream  and  the  interpretation  thereof,)  were  to  be  found 
out  for(hwi(h,  without  (he  sligh(est  direction  or  hint  from  the  propounder. 
But  our  Trustees,  unlike  the  soothsayers  of  the  Assyrian  monarch — were 
not  to  be  daunted  by  the  didiculties  of  (he  case.  The  way,  they  were  toUl, 
had  been  trodden  before  (hem  ;  and  with  an  exhortation  to  be  rrady  for 
any  responsibility,  they  adjourn  their  meeting  and  go  forth  to  the  work. 

in  so  extensive  and  complicated  an  establishment,  embracing  four  or- 
ganic seminaries  of  learning, — a  College,  a  Theological  Seminary,  and 

•  A  part  of  the  Board,  as  I  have  intimated,  ■*>i8  doubtless  in  confederacy 
and  correspondence  with  the  clique  on  "  the  Hill ;"  Jhese  were  of  course  well 
supplied  with  information  ex  parte.  ^ 

t  To  any  one  acquainted  with  the  circumstances,  the  self-deVotion  of  these 
gentlemen  in  assuming  the  "  responsibility"  of  my  dismissal^  and  the  grand- 
iloquent terms  in  which  they  speak  of  their  "  personal  knowledge"  of 
matters  and  thinss  at  Gambier,  are  quite  amvsins.  "TK^  most  wonder- 
ful part  of  the  whole  affair,"  said  an  Ohio  friend  tome,  shortly  after  my 
removal,  "  is  that  these  Trustees  should  have  been  so  completely  duped 
into  the  belief,  that  they  were  the  authors  of  your  dismissal."  "  Not  all 
dupeg,"  I  replied. 


44 

two  distinct  Grammar  Schools — with  their  respective  systems  of  disci- 
pline, their  various  departments  of  instruction,  the  means  and  appliances 
of  each,  and  all  the  relations,  internal  and  external,  incident  to  such  in- 
stitutions; embracing  also  an  extensive  domain  of  farms,  village  tene- 
ments, mills,  and  privileges  of  various  kinds;  and  finally  havinL-,  as  all 
admit,  a  most  mysterious  complication  of  books  aiid  records  in  the  office 
of  the  Agent; — it  might  reasonably  have  been  ex[)ecled  that  several  days, 
perhaps  even  weeks,  would  have  been  occupied,  even  by  men  of  experi- 
ence and  discipline,  in  the  investiiration  of  either  branch  of  the  proposed 
inquiry.  Bui  no;  the  Board  adjourned  a  little  before  dinner,  and  met 
a>>^ain  a  little  after,  havin":  achieved  that  meal,  and  digested  to  their  own 
salisfaction,  all  the  comjilicated  interests  and  relations  of  the  whole  insti- 
tution. This  waj5  done,  we  aie  told,  by  dividing  the  committee  of  six, 
into  three  sub  committees  and  so,  by  a  la[)or-saving  process,  making  a 
circle  of  domiciliary  visits  to  "  every  officer  of  the  whole  in-titution, 
whether  of  the  College,  its  Schools,  the  Theological  Seminary,  or  the 
Treasury,  except  the.  Bishop."  Let  us  follow  tliem  a  little  way  in  this 
process. 

The  two  who  called  upon  me  were  Col.  Bond  and  Mr.  Smallwood. 
They  came  into  my  study  just  before  dinner,  very  much  in  the  manner  of 
gentl<MTien  in  New  York  making  a  new  year's  call.  They  did  not  lay 
aside  their  hats  or  canes,  and  my  impression  is  that  they  did  not  even  sit 
down,  but  perhaps  they  did;  at  all  events,  their  call  was  very  unlike  a 
call  of  busine-s  in  any  respect,  nor  did  the  lime  or  manner  of  it  admit  of 
any  thing  like  formal  statements.  They  spoke  at  first,  generally,  of  the 
diminution  of  numbers,  which  I  showed  them  was  an  inquiry  relating  to 
the  Grammar  Schools,  not  to  the  College.  They  then  pressed  me  to 
speak  more  particularly  of  those  insfituMons,  and  I  stated,  very  frankly, 
with  regard  to  the  Senior  Grammar  School,  that  Mr.  Sandels  had  more 
on  his  hands  than  he  could  (io.  He  was  a  young  instructor,  in  point  of 
experience,  and  often  complaining  on  account  of  his  health;  about  half 
his  recitations,  in  the  College,  had  been  from  one  cause  or  other,  omitted 
during  the  current  term,  and  I  presumed  an  equal  proportion  of  hn  duties 
in  the  Grammar  School;  that- the  students  of  that  institution  had  com- 
plaine'!  greatly  on  this  account,  and  must,  to  a  very  considerable  extent, 
have  lost  interest  in  the  .school.  With  regard  to  the  Junior  Grammar 
School  at  Milnor  Hall;'  J  declined  making  .iny  statements,  leaving  the 
principals  of  that  institution  to  speak  for  themselves.  The  whole  inter- 
view may  have  lasted  twelve. qr  fifteen  minutes;  and  the  couimiltee  then 
went  over  to  Mr.  Ross's,  where  they  remained  about  five  minutes.  Tliey 
afterwards  called  upon  Dr.  Thrall  and  Mr.  Sandels,  \shich  I  presume 
completed  the  forenoon  operations  of  that  sub-conmnittee.  Tlieir  col- 
leagues in  the  meantime  were  simihiily  engaged,  as  I  suppose  at  Milnor 
Hall,  Mr.  Wing's  and  Mr.  While's  office,  and  in  the  College  with  Mr. 
Gibbs  and  Mr.  Lang;  remaining  about  twice  as  long  with  each  of  the  lat- 
ter as  with  Prof.  Ross  and  myself  collectively. 

Such  was  (he  tnodas  operandi  of  this  so  called  investigation.  And  now 
I  prav  you  look  at  it  for  a  moment  as  a  judic  iai  proceedin<>-,  involving  (he 
public  station,  name,  and  character  of  the  President  of  the  College.  Ob- 
serve in  the  first  place,  that  although  the  process  had  been  maturing  for 
nearly  two  months,  with  a  clear,  acknowledged,  reference  to  myself,  I 
was  still  uninformed  of  it  at  the  meeting  of  the  Board;  and  the  "hole  in- 
quiry, such  as  it  was,  had  been  completed,  and  for  hours  deliberated 
upon,  before  the  slightest  intimation  reached  me  (and  then  from  a  foreign 
source)  that  I  was  (he  subject  of  it,  or  my  conduct  and  character  in  any 
way  called  in  question.  Ob.serve  second/j/,  the  organization  of  the  com- 
mittee of  inquiry  into  sub-committees,  taking  away  from  it  all  its  effi- 


45 

ciency  as  a  judicial  body  to  weigh  and  compare  evidence,  and  making  it 
a  mere  drag  net  to  collect  every  species  of  idle  gossip.  Thirdly,  toe  ir- 
responsibility of  the  testimony.  None  of  the  witnesses,  except  the  initi- 
ated, having  any  idea  of  the  drift  and  bearing  of  the  thing,  or  appre- 
hending at  all  the  value  about  to  be  assigned  to  the  casual  words  of  an 
apparently,  common  conversation.  Foarthly,  the  power  of  the  sub-com- 
niittees  to  draw  out  precisely  the  te.^timony  that  suited  them,  and  re- 
press whatever  did  not — a  power  that  was  used  without  scruple,  (in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Ross  and  others)  whenever  the  replies  did  not  implicate  me. 
Fifthly,  the  irresponsibility  of  the  sub-committees — keeping  no  record 
of  the  statements  made  to  them,  and  giving  virtually  their  own  versions 
of  such  parts  as  best  suited  them,  and  rejecting  others.  No  part  of  my 
statement,  for  instance,  nor  ol  Prof.  Ross's,  and  but  a  small  portion  of 
some  others,  appeared  in  the  committee's  report.  Was  this  a  fair  and 
honorable  inquiry?  Has  it  a  single  feature  of  judicial  equity  in  it.'  On 
the  contrary,  does  it  not  everywhere  betray  the  workings  of  a  simple  pre- 
determined purpose  to  remove  me  from  office,  right  or  wrong,  and  a 
perfect  symbolism  among  all  the  agencies  lor  carrying  out  this  purpose' 
from  its  first  inception  in  the  early  part  of  January  to  its  final  consum" 
mation  on  the  29lh  of  February  ?  It  is  of  no  consequence  how  or  in  «  ha^ 
manner  this  symbolism  was  effected.  I  care  not  to  speculate  upon  the 
secrets  of  the  Bishop's  back  parlor,  or  Mr.  Wing's,  or  Mr.  Sandel's,  or 
Mr.  Blake's  studies,  or  Mr.  VVhite's  office;  nor  will  1  trouble  myself  to 
inquire  what  passed  between  these  persons  and  their  guests,  that  night, 
or  that  morn  ng,  or  at  any  time.  There  was  enough  in  the  Bishop's 
ominous  exhortations  and  cautions,  enough  in  his  significant  reserves — 
the  President  not  being  admitted  to  his  councils — to  have  guided  them, 
(the  Trustees)  even  without  any  external  confederacy.  At  all  events, 
whether  by  instinct  or  inference,  their  actions  show  that  they  knew  very 
well  what  was  to  be  done;  no  pack  "  bred  out  of  the  Spartan  kind"  ever 
fleshed  their  game  with  a  more  sure  and  certain  scent. 

The  Board  reassembled  between  two  and  three  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
23th,  the  committee  having  already  completed  their  work  and  made  up 
their  report.  Between  three  and  five,  of  the  same  afternoon,  I  had  an  in- 
terview with  them  on  matters  of  ordinary  business,  and  sat  for  an  hour  in 
familiar  conversation,  ending  with  an  invitation  to  dine  with  me  on  (he 
following  day;  and  still  not  a  lisp  was  heard  of  the  ruin  which  awaited 
me,  and  which  even  then  mu.st  already  have  been  virtually  consummated 
in  their  secret  council.  It  was  not  till  neaj?  nine  in  the  evening  that  Prof. 
Ross  came  into  my  strdy,  and  with  startling  earncstne>^^s  exhorte«l  me  to 
go  and  see  the  Board  forthwith;  informing  me — and  this  was  my  firat  in- 
formntitm — not  that  I  was  accused,  but  that  I  had  been  actually  tried  and 
condemned,  and  the  sentence — the  severest  which  it  was  in  the  power  of 
the  Board  to  inflict — was  already  in  suspi-nse  over  me.  Then  (bjlowed 
my  interview  with  the  committee  at  the  Bishop's,  of  which  I  have  given 
a  di-lailed  account  in  my  former  Statement,  and  wliirh  for  the  first  time 
unfolded  all  the  realities  of  the  systematic  treachery  and  duplicity  with 
which  I  had  been  surrounded. 

I  need  not  repeat  the  narrative,  already  given,  of  these  painful  develop- 
m'^nts — the  night  of  agony  that  followed  the  interview  just  mentioned — 
iho  tampering  of  Cols  Bond  and  Cummings  on  the  following  morning  to 
in  luce  me  to  endorse  my  own  dishonor  by  the  tender  of  my  resignation — 
the  like  plausable  attempt  of  the  former  and  the  Rev.  Smallwood  to  draw 
me  into  a  hypothetical  defence  of  my  character  and  conduct,  when  it 
was  not  pretended  that  either  was  impeached — my  final  protest  against 
the  whole  proceedings — and  finallv,  in  a  little  more  than  twenty  hours 
from  the  first  note  of  warning  by  Prof.  Ross,  the  coup  de  grace  by  the 
Board. 


46 

A  brief  notice  of  one  or  two  mis  •statements  in  the  Reply  is  all  that  need 
now  be  said  on  these  subjects.  "A  private  advice  to  resig^n,"  it  is  stated, 
"  was  first  given  to  Mr.  D.  by  Col.  Bond."  This  of  course  refers  to  the 
call  of  that  gentlentan  at  ray  house  on  the  morning  of  the  29th,  that  being 
the  only  personal  interview  I  had  with  him  during  the  proceedings.  But 
tlie  writer  forgets  to  mention  that  there  was  a  first  communication  prior 
to  this.  On  the  previous  evening  I  had  an  interview  of  an  hour  and  a 
half  with  the  investigating  committee,  in  which  1  was  distinctly  told  that 
unless  I  resigned,  I  should  be  dismissed;  and  this  alternative  was  never 
after  for  a  moment  lost  sight  of.  It  was  still  hanging  over  me  in  all  its 
terrors,  when  Col.  Bond  called,  with  the  look  and  language  of  a  friend, 
and  exhausted  all  tlje  powers  of  his  rhetoric  to  induce  me  to  tender  my  re- 
signation, lean  hardly  lookback  upon  this  crisis  without  ashudder.  I  have 
had  many  dan^^ers  to  encounter  in  the  course  of  my  life,  and  some  hair- 
breadth escapes,  but  I  remember  none  with  more  fervent  gratitude  to  a 
kind  protecting  Providence,  than  that  while  thus  surrounded  with  sore 
temptations  and  trials,  unaided  by  any  human  counsel,  I  was  yet  enabled 
to  maintain  my  integrity,  in  spurning  this  insidious  advice.  The  value 
of  the  friendship  that  prompted  it  may  be  estimated  by  what  followed. 
The  Colonel,  in  making  his  report  of  the  interview  to  the  Board,  is  re- 
puted to  have  said,  "  He  will  not  resign,  we  cannot  avoid  dismissing 
him;"  and  yet  within  the  same  hour,  the  same  gentleman,  acting  as  a 
committee  man,  assured  me  in  the  most  cordial,  as  well  as  the  most  court- 
ly pi. rase,  that  there  was  '.lot  the  slightest  charge  of  any  kind  pretended 
to  be  alleged  against  me;  and  such  was  also,  in  effect,  the  reco>ded  report 
of  the  committee  of  inquiry,  as  heretofore  quoted.  Why  could  they  not 
avoid  dismissing  a  man  confessedly  innocent.^ 

The  version  they  give  of  this  disclaimer  of  "charge  against  me,"  (p. 
17)  is,  tliat  when  I  complained  "  that  I  was  to  be  dismissed  without  bein^ 
informed  upon  what  charges,"  "the  answer  was  that  no  charges  were 
brought;  that  the  simple  fact  was,  that  the  patronage  of  the  institution 
was  not  enough  for  its  support;"  "  a  large  debt  and  deficit  must  accrue 
that  year,"  &c.  &c.  I  afflrm  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  this  state- 
ment is,  in  every  particular,  utterly  false.  The  matter  of  the  "  charges 
against  me,"  was  not  called  up  by  me  in  the  way  of  complaint  at  all;  it 
was  a  simple  inquiry  for  information.  When  the  committee  offered  me 
an  opportunity  of  defence,  I  wished  to  know,  of  course,  what  was  to  be 
the  subject  of  that  defence,  and  to  this  end  I  inquired,  "what  are  the 
charges  against  me?"  The  answer,  after  some  conversation,  was  given 
by  Col.  Bond;  not  "  that  no  charges  were  brought;"  but,  that  there  were 
no  charges;  and  this  was  the  only  answer,  consistent  with  the  committees 
report  jusi  referred  to.  The  "  simple  fact,"  namely,  that  the  patronage 
of  the  institution  was  insufficient,  &c.,  said  to  have  been  stated  to  me 
in  reply,  is  a  pure  imagination.  The  fiscalities  of  the  institution  were 
not  mentioned  or  alluded  to  by  the  committee  in  anyway  whatever.  Not 
a  word  was  said  on  that  subject.* 

His  next  position,  say  thev,  (p.  17,)  was,  that  he  had  been  given  no 
opportunity  of  confronting  those  who  had  given  information — whereupon 
"the  Trustees  immediately  sent  a  Committee,"  &c.,  &c.  This  again,  is 
untrue.  It  is,  in  fact,  opposed  to  their  own  statement,  see  page  12,  where 
they  say,  "a  Committee  was  sent  (immediately  after  Col.  Bonds  report 
of  the  private  interview,)  to  urge  a  resignation,  and  to  convey  the  assur- 

•  A  detailed  account  of  this  interview  is  giveu  in  my  former  Statement,  p. 
12,  13.  It  embraces  every  subject  discussed  and  the  substance  of  every 
thing  that  was  said  j  it  has  not  been,  nor  can  it  be  controverted  in  any  par- 
ticular. 


47 

aiice  that  if  not  received  by  a  certain  hour,  a  dismis.sion  would  ensue.'* 
I  shall  not  try  to  reconcile  these  conflicting  statements.  The  last  quoted 
is  the  true  one.  As  to  an  opportunity  of  confronting  my  accusers,  it  was 
neither  asked  nor  tendered.  The  idea  was  not  expressed  or  implied  in 
any  part  of  the  conversation.  I  protested  against  the  whole  proceeding 
from  beginning  to  end.  I  denounced  it  then,  as  I  denounce  it  now,  as  an 
inhuman  outrage — and  I  warned  them  fully  that  1  would  "  never  cease  to 
protest  against  if  as  an  act  of  flagrant  cruelty,  injustice  and  op|)rcssion." 
The  Reply,  page  13,  attempts  an  argument  against  my  claim  of  tenure 
for  life.  1  am  represented  as  having  said  to  the  Bishop  on  a  former 
occasion,  "  that  (I)  was  then  in  correspondence  witli  gentlemen  east- 
ward, about  an  office  similar  to  what  (I)  then  held;"  and  as  "every 
bargain  has  two  sides,"  if  I  did  not  feel  myself  bound  to  stay  for  life,  I 
could  have  no  claim  to  a  tenure  for  life.  This  statement  and  the  reasoning 
from  it  comes  of  course  from  the  Bishop,  and  they  are  both  alike  erro- 
neous. I  never  tcld  him  or  any  body  else  that  /  was  in  correspondence 
with  any  body,  about  any  oflfice,  similar  or  dissimilar.  In  point  of  fact, 
I  nev«^r  penned  a  syllable  to  any  gentleman  Eastward  of  the  kind  here 
represented,  except  to  decline  a  very  advantageous  proposition  that  was 
gratuitously  made  to  me.  But  if  it  were  even  true  that  I  was  in  such  a 
correspondence,  and  that  I  fully  contemplated  resigning  whenever  "an 
alternative  worth  thinking  of  should  occur,"  it  would  not  in  the  least  have 
impaired  my  claim  to  a  tenure  for  life.  Officers  of  the  Army  re-ign — 
Judges  of  the  Court  resign — any  person  holding  office  for  a  term  of  years 
resigns  within  that  term,  if  he  pleases,  it  d(>es  not  alter  the  tenure.  Bishop 
Mc  Ilvaine  was  fully  determined  to  resign,  in  a  certain  confinjrency,  in 
1840.  He  even  wrote  to  me  about  an  "  ivllernative  worth  thinking  of ;" 
does  it  follow  that  the  Convention  of  Ohio  have  a  right  to  turn  him  out 
therefore,  whenever  they  please  ?  The  idea  is  absurd.  Bishop  M. 
well  knows  that  the  right  of  tenure  is  not  a  reciprocal  right  in  the  sen.se  in 
which  he  here  affirms  it.  It  is  emphatically  a  safeguard  to  the  incumbent, 
against  the  injustice  or  bad  faith  of  a  capricious  employer,  and  in  this 
light  I  claim  it.  Whether  my  claim  is  good  depends  not  upon  whether  I 
might,  or  might  not  have  been  induced  to  resign  under  certain  circum- 
stances, but  ui>on  the  expressed  or  implied  conditions  of  the  original  com- 
pact, under  which  1  accepted  the  Presidency,  and  removed  to  Ohio, — 
and  thatMo<e  may  be  somewhat  better  understood,  I  give  here  entire  the 
two  first  letters  I  received  from  Bishop  Mcllvaine — President  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  on  this  subject.  The  first  is  written,  you  will  per- 
ceive, on  Sunday  morning,  just  before  the  solemn  services  at  the  cluse 
of  the  Convention  at  Mount  Vern(»n. 

LETTER   I. 

Mount  Vernon,  Sunday  morning,  August  9th,  1840. 
My  Dear  Major — I  write  in  great  haste,  just  to  say  that  I  nominated  you 
yesterday  to  be  President  of  Kenyon  College,  at  a  salary  not  less  than  $1000, 
with  house  and  grounds,  pasturage,  8tc.,  and  that  you  were  unanimously 
elected,  with  acclamation,  by  a  new  Board,  and  a  right  Board,  representing 
the  Diocese — the  Board  bavin?  been  elected  almost  without  dissent  All 
things  have  gone  as  I  desired.  My  troubles  in  this  respect  seem  nearly  over — 
in  case  you  accept — I  write  now  hastily  to  say  I  will  write  more  fully  as  soon 
as  I  can  get  an  hour.     Only  don't  commit  yourself  to  any  thing  else,  and  say 

nothing  about  it  till  I  can  write  to ,  and  you  again.     Write  me  as  soon 

as  you  please.        Yours  very  afl'ectionately,         CHAS  P.  MclLVAINE. 

I^KTTBR    II. 

Oambier,  August  10,  1840. 
Dear  Major — I  wrote  you  hastily  yesterday,  announcing  your  appointment 
as  President  of  Kenyon  College,  with  a  salary  of  $1000,  a  house,  aad  moH 


48 

more  than  10  acres  of  land  for  pasture,  &c.  I  write  now  to  say  that  the  ap- 
pointment  is  exceedingly  popular.  Only  it  is  predicted  by  certain,  who  would 
not  be  a  little  pleased  to  see  my  plans  fail,  that  you  will  not  come.  I  say 
you  will— and  all  with  me  depends  on  that.  I  consider  the  living  worth  at 
least  $2000  in  Brooklyn.  I  do  hope  you  will  consent  to  consecrate  yourself 
to  this  work  for  life.  Your  department  is  Moral  and  Intellectual  Philosophy 
and  Rhelorie.  Don't  be  alarmed,  you  can  easily  make  yourself  up  for  il — ■ 
with  your  JVIathematical  mind,  and  fondness  for  reading,  and  ability  to  study, 

you  will  easily  go  ahead.     We  have  appointed  K Prof  of  Mathemiitics 

and  Nat.  Philosophy.     's  health  was   considered  too   unpromising.     We 

should  not  have  turned  him  off,  but  as  we  were  organizing  a  College,  not 
supposed  before  to  have  existed,  he  was  not  appointed.  A  new  Prof,  of 
Lansuages   has    been   appointed — a   new  Agent  also      I   think  it  probable 

will  resign  his  Professorship.     All  see  now  that  I  am  head,  and  will 

be,  and  am  powerfully  backed  by  the   Diocese.     We   shall    be   all    harmony 

here.     — is  left  out.     Now  I  want  you  to  go  right  up  to  see  K ,  and 

get  him  to  accept.  His  salary  is  $600,  and  house  and  grounds.  I  shall  write 
him  immediately.  You  have  a  vacation  of  eight  weeks  lo  get  ready.  The 
sooner  you  are  here,  however,  tlie  better.  I  rejoice  indeed  in  the  prospect. 
You  must  come.  I  am  killed  if  you  do  not.  You  will  find  things  very  much 
on  the  mf-nd.  told  me  he  would  not  undertake  Intellectual  Philoso- 
phy. That  was  an  insuperable  obstacle.  But  I  see  now  that  I  have  made 
precisely  the  choice.  All,  even  my  opponents,  say  so.  Let  me  hear  without 
delay.  The  sooner  I  can  say  in  the  papers  you  have  accepted,  and  that 
K has,  the  belter.  All  wait  to  hear.  Il  wilt  probably  save  us  some  stu- 
dents,  if  it  comes  in  time.     Try  to  get  K 's  ear  before  writes 

him.*  Yours  very  affectionately,  C.  P.  M . 

Upon  the  faith  of  these  lefters,  followed  by  many  olhers  in  the  same 
strain  of  urgency  and  conciliation, — removing  every  obslacle  and  every 
objection  as  fast  as  it  was  presented — I  finally  accepted  ihe  Presidency 
of  Kenyon  College  ;  wound  up  my  affairs  at  Brooklyn  by  a  peremptory 
liquidation,  the  more  ruinous  because  of  the  universal  embarrassment  of 
the  limes,  and  cast  all  my  future  fortunes  and  the  fortunes  of  my  fandly, 
upon  the  prospect  of  honorable  employment  and  usefulness,  in  the  station 
to  which  I  had  been  so  long  and  so  urgently  invoked  *  Was  this  a 
compact  to  be  dissolved  at  an  hour's  noticCj  at  the  mere  will  of  the  parly 
of  the  first  part .' 

The  Bishop  would  fain  have  it  believed,  that  my  appointment  was  not 
a  compact  between  equal  parties,  but  a  pure  gratuity  from  him  to  mb, 
involving  no  reciprocal  d  ity  or  obligation  on  his  part  whatever.  To 
judge  from  many  parts  of  the  Reply,  I  was  almost  a  stranger  to  him, 
scarcely  known  except  upon  the  footing  of  a  very  general  acquaintance, 

•  I  have  thought  it  due  to  myself  to  publish  these  letters  entire,  to  guard 
against  the  disingenuous  evasions  and  perversions  lo  which  the  author  of  the 
"  Reply"  has  thought  proper  to  resort,  in  his  notice  of  the  extracts  hereto- 
fore given  from  this  same  correspondence.  I  deprecate  as  much  as  any  one 
can,  any  refer*  nee  to  such  a  correspondence  in  a  public  discussion,  bul  I  claim 
justification  on  the  ground,  which  justifies  even  the  taking  of  life,  that  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  in,  self  defence.  It  has  been  said  that  the  case  of  neces- 
sity can  only  be  made  by  the  order  of  a  civil  court,  hut  I  submit  with  all  due 
deference  that  the  order  of  the  court  does  not  make  the  case  at  all,  it  only 
declares  it.  The  necessity,  like  that  of  justifiable  homicide,  is  physical ;  it 
exists  prior  to  and  independent  of  any  such  declaration.  In  regard  to  the 
present  case,  I  ask  any  upright  man  to  realize  it  as  his  own — his  ri.'hts  and 
the  rights  of  his  family  violated,  his  properly  wasted,  his  name  and  character 
vilified,  his  professional  hopes  in  a  measure  blasted  by  the  broken  faith  or 
vindictiveness  of  his  fellow  man,  and  he  with  the  evidence  of  that  broken 
faith  in  his  hand,  under  the  sign  manual  of  the  aggressor — need  I  ask  what 
he  would  do  ?  The  two  letters  now  published,  however,  are  at  least  demi- 
official. 


49 

yet  it  may  be  shown  from  the  correspondence,  that  I  had  been  upon  terms 
of  the  most  intimate  and  unreserved  confidence, — the  confidence  of  entire 
personal  equality,  for  15  /ears  previous  to  my  appointment  as  President. 
His  importunity  in  1833,  and  in  1840,  he  represents  as  having'  rfference, 
not  to  the  substantive  question  but  only  to  the  time  of  my  comitiof,  &c. 
But  I  submit  to  the  judo^menl  of  any  impartial  reader,  regarding  the  ex- 
tracts already  given,  whether  this  is  a  correct  or  candid  view  in  either 
case,  and  to  make  it  more  plain,  I  shall  add  one  or  two  farther  particu- 
lars. In  regard  to  the  Vice-Presidency  in  1833, — the  Bishop  represents 
me  [p.  26,)  as  having  "  no  business  or  permanent  employment,"  at  that 
time,  and  being"  in  need  of  such  eni|)loyment  ;"  yet  he  knows  that  I 
was  Professor  of  Natural  Philosohpy  in  the  New  York  University,  with 
the  option  of  lucrative  employment  also  as  a  Civil  Engineer.  He  knows 
moreover,  that  the  "  pecuniary  affairs"  that  hindered  me  from  going  at 
that  time,  and  upon  which  he  has  dilated  so  largely  as  a  ground  of  re- 
proach, was  a  simple  transaction  (  in  the  slock  of  a  certain  company 
with  which  I  had  been  officially  connected)  into  which  I  had  been  inad- 
vertently drawn  without  anv  the  slightest  fault  on  my  part.  He  knows 
this,  fori  stated  it  to  him  fully  in  answer  to  his  vehement  and  unceasing 
solicitations,  and  I  have  now  before  me  his  letter  of  condolence  in  reply  ; 
an  extract  from  which  will  be  a  sufficient  answer  lo  all  the  unkind 
misrepresentations  now  attempted  on  this  subject,  (the  Vice-Presidency 
of  1833.)     The  letter  is  dated  Gambler,  Feb.  14,  1834. 

'*  My  dear  friend  and  brother — I  received  your  two,  well  filled,  and 
interesting  sheets  a  few  days  since,  and  had  hardly  read  two  lines  before 
I  began  to  feel  very  sorry  that  I  ever  wrote  you  those  letters  which  in 
your  circumstances  must  have  been  exceedingly  painful.  But  Major,, 
you  must  set  them  down  to  my  selfishness,  and  impetuosity,  and  love  of 
you,  and  anxiety  to  be  a  co-worker  with  you,  and  not  to  any  thing  like 
complaint  or  alienation  of  heart  from  you.  I  had  no  conception  that  your 
difficulties  would  prove  so  greater  your  debt  so  deep.  In  the  anxiety 
and  load  they  must  occasion  you,  I  do  most  deeply  .sympathise.  May 
you  have  the  consolation  of  him  who  is  touched  with  a  feeling  of  your 
infirmities,"  &c.  &c. 

The  Presidency  in  1840  is  held  up  as  a  pure  gratuity.*  Although 
"  the  place  went  a  begging,"  it  was  offered  as  a  favor  to  me,  a 
"  pecuniary  convenience"';  and  the  idea  that  I  accepted  it  with  any  view 
to  oblige  the  Bisiiop  is  indignantly  spurned.  Referrins;  to  one  of  my 
letters  of  1840  in  which  this  view  was  presented,  he  tells  us,  it  was 
"  immediately  answered  with  a  protest"  in  the  following  words  :  viz. 
•  I  chose  you  because  I  wanted  you  for  the  College,  but  believing  al.<o 
that  it  would  be  good  for  you';  which  words  he  says  were  written,  not 
on  the  21st  September,  as  quoted  in  mv  "  statement,"  but  on  the  2d  De- 
cember, and  answered  by  me  on  the  16th.  If  the  Bishop  "  kept  a  copy" 
of  this  correspondence,  I  can  only  say  he  has  made  a  very  disingenuous 

*  I  could  show  by  our  intermediate  correspondence  that  the  Bishop  was 
always  anxious  to  get  me  at  the  head  of  some  institution  in  the  West,  and 
I  always  reluctant.  In  1837  he  moved  by  himself  in  a  particular  attempt 
for  this  purpose  which  he  had  much  at  heart,  and  wrole  several  times  chid- 
in^ly,  to  me  because  I  did  not  take  the  same  interest.  In  1S39,  the  moment 
the  Journal  of  the  Ohio  Convention  was  out,  he  sent  me  a  copy  endorsed 
in  his  own  hnnJ  with  my  name, and  the  words  "  see  page  25' — and,  on  turn- 
ing to  that  page,  I  found  a  score  round  the  passage  of  the  Bishop's  address 
in  which  he  opens  the  subject  of  a  separate  presidency.  All  his  friends  and 
mine,  to  whom  I  showed  it,  construed  it  as  an  intimation  of  his  '^  first  choice." 
I  do  not  quote  these  things  to  disparage  the  Bishop's  friendship  at  thai  lime, 
bat  to  show  what  are  his  claims  to  consistency  in  the  position  be  new  takes. 

7 


50 

use  of  it  ;  if  he  has  not,  he  shows  great  hardihood  in  asserting  ore  rotuU' 
do,  what  lie  could  not  be  very  sure  of.  His  letters  are  now  before  me, 
and  the  passage  referred  to  appears,  not  as  a  protest,  nor  in  the  letter  of 
December  2d  at  all,  but  exactly  as  I  quoted  it,  under  date  i.f  September 
21st — part  of  an  argument  to  confirm  me  in  the  acceptance  of  the  prof- 
fered Presidency.*  The  real  "  protest,"  if  pro/es<  it  can  be  called,  is  a 
very  harmless  thing,  and  1  take  leave  to  quote  it  is  a  pregnant  commen- 
tary upon  the  position  now  so  arrogantly  assumed  by  the  wntir.  It 
occurs  in  the  midst  of  other  matters  on  the  fourth  page  of  his  letter. — 
"  Dear  Major,  1  do  not  quite  like  it,  that  in  your  last  you  set  down  all 
your  efforts  to  come  here  and  be  President,  and  the  resistance  of  tempt- 
ing offers,  &c.  to  a  '  desire  to  accommodate  mij  wishes.'  Is  it  only  for  my 
wishes  ?  But  this  is  a  point  which  between  its  is  too  delicate  to  be  furtlier 
touched  on."  This  is  the  allusion  noticed  by  mo  in  my  letter  of  the 
16th.  But  the  most  remarkable  part  of  this  so  called  "  protest"  is,  that 
while  it  was  expressly  intended  (so  says  the  Bishop)  to  remind  me  of 
my  obligations  as  the  favoured  party,  it  does  in  fact  absolve  me  entirely 
from  any  such  obligation.  "  I  have  had  my  views  fov  you,"  it  goes  on 
to  say,  "  but  I  have  no  idea  of  thinking,  or  beginning  to  think,  that  you 
are  under  any  obligations  tome."t 

An  equally  disingenuous  and  detractive  use  is  made  of  my  letters  writ- 
ten (after  my  acceptance)  to  explain  the  cause  of  my  detention  at  Brook- 
lyn for  the  settlement  of  my  affairs.  By  garbled  extracts,  the  Bishop 
endeavors  to  make  out  that  I  was  one  of  the  most  abject  of  prodigals — 
embarrassed  in  circumstances — not  as  every  body  else  was  embarrassed 
at  that  time,  by  the  monetary  crisis,  but  by  my  own  sheer  recklessness 
and  improvidence.  I  will  not  enter  into  a  defence  of  my  chanicler  in  this 
particular.  Perhaps  I  may  not  always  have  been  sufficiently  regardful  uf 
the  value  of  money  ;  but  that  is  not  now  the  question.  As  to  my  embar- 
rassments in  1840,  the  Bishop  knows  that  the  representation  he  has  given 
of  them  is  utterly  unfounded  and  most  unjust.  The  facts  are  simply 
these  :  Under  the  advisement  of  friends  I  was  induced  to  invest  ray  liitle 
capital — (the  earnings  of  my  professional  life)  and  some  credit, — in 
Brooklyn  property.  Being  myself  wholly  engaged  in  other  pursuits,  I 
allowed,  as  many  others  did,  the  criiical  moment  for  realizing  to  pass 
unimproved  ;  and  when  the  troubles  came,  agitating  alike  the  whole  bu- 
siness community,  I  had  enormous  assessments,  taxes  and  interest  to  pay 
without  the  power  to  sell  a  foot  of  land  at  any  price. {  Of  course  all  my 
resources  for  ready  money  were  completely  absorbed  by  these  demands, 
and  I  was  for  a  time,  as  I  stated  in  all  frankness  to  the  Bishop,  most  seri- 

•  The  entire  quotation  under  date  September  21,  is  as  follows:  "  I  have 
been  greatly  relieved  to-day  by  yours  of  the  14th,  by  which  I  conclude,  as 
on  the  strength  of  it  I  have  given  out,  that  you  are  comina  :  Ail  sorts  of  ru- 
mour haJ  been  spread  that  you  had  declineJ" — "  I  could  only  hope,  but  I  have 
suffered  great  anxiely"  The  "  questions  you  propose  as  to  the  interference 
of  the  Board,  &c.  may  all  be  answered  in  one  sentence — they  have  never  in- 
terfered in  such  things — all  has  been  left  to  the  Faculty — all  under  you  will 
be — so  you  are  leit  at  ease  on  all  such  heads.  Therefore  I  conclude  that  you 
will  certainly  come ;  and  Major,  I  do  honestly  believe  that  it  is  your  duty  to 
the  Church — to  your  usefulness — to  your  family.  1  know  you  will  never  be 
as  happy  in  Brooklyn  as  you  may  be  here.  I  chose  you  because  I  wanted 
you  for  the  College  ;  but  believing  also  it  would  be  good  for  you." 

t  The  letter  was  in  fact  an  apology  for  his  hasty  epistle  from  Medina,  and 
concludes,  after  detailing;  the  circumstances  under  which  that  letter  was  writ- 
ten, as  follows  :  "  Now  let  us  have/air  weather  again." 

X  I  paid  in  one  instance  an  assessment  of  about  $4090  on  an  acre  of  ground 
for  the  opening  of  a  street  on  which  1  had  not  a  foot  of  front. 


51 

cusly  and  painfully  embarrassed.  There  are  many,  I  imagine,  who  can 
realize  ihe  ca:>e  on  ils  merits,  however  much  hk  may  be  disposed  to 
myslify  it. 

It  was  in  my  endeavoi-s  to  extricate  my  affairs,  and  most  especially  with 
a  view  to  the  interest  of  my  creditors  that  in  1S39  and  40,  I  declined,  as 
I  have  stated,  all  offers  o(  service,  however  tempting,  that  would  have 
taken  me  away  from  Brooklyn.  And  the  question  really  to  be  decided,' 
when  the  Pres^idency  ol  Kenyon  College  was  tendered  to  nie,  was  whether 
I  would  abandon  all  hopes  of  retrievement,  and  submit,  in  those  adverse 
times,  to  an  immediate  and  peremptory  liquidation.  Ihe  decision,  it  may 
well  be  sui)posed,  was  a  very  painful  one.  Nor  was  it  settled  alBrnia- 
tively  until  1  was  assured  that  the  aid  and  agency  of  kind  friends  would 
be  given  lo  carry  out  the  best  possible  arrangement  of  my  affairs,  for  the 
benefit  of  all  coni;erned.*  According  to  the  Bishops  account  there  was 
no  sacrifice  in  all  this;  not  the  least  difficulty  in  closing  up  all  my  multi- 
farious concerns,  public  and  private;  in  the  midst  of  the  general  depression 
of  that  period,  on  a  short  notice  of  six  or  eight  weeks.  My  removal  to 
Gambler,  instead  of  enhancing  my  embarrassments,  he  aff-^cts  to  regird 
as  the  grand  panacea  that  was  to  cure  them  all.  1  shall  not  answer  these 
absurdities,  further  than  to  give  an  extract  from  my  letter  of  the  16th  De- 
cember, by  which,  together  with  that  of  the  27th  Nov.,  the  Bishop  might 
have  corrected  his  sentiments  on  the  subject  if  he  had  been  so  minded  .f 
The  quotation  is  made  from  a  copy  which  1  believe  to  be  substantially 
correct.  "  In  my  early  letters,  no  matter  which,  I  spoke  of  my  debts, 
and  the  absolute  necessity  of  arranging  them  before  going  to  Gambier. 
Now  every  body  here  knows  that  the  most  tedious,  difficult,  wearisome, 
and  vexatious  of  all  labors  in  these  limes  is  the  settlement  of  accounts; 
unlesN  indeed  one  has  money  in  hand  to  pay  them  as  fast  as  Ihey  are  ren- 
dered. That  I  have  had  my  full  share  of  these  trials  you  will  see  by  my 
last  letter,  and  I  counted  upon  the  difficulties  incident  to  such  business, 
being,  as  a  matter  of  course,  equally  well  known  to  you,  as  to  its  here. 
It  was  known  furthermore  that  I  was  President  of  an  important  Public  In- 
stitution, [the  Greenwood  Cemetery]  which  was  yet  to  be  matured  under 
my  administration,  and  for  which,  under  that  view,  considerable  sums  of 
money  had  been  advanced  by  different  individuals;  and  besides,  i7  was 
the  mea/is  by  which  I  was  myself  to  realise  funds  for  the  paynient  of  my 
bills  and  expenses.  Now  this  consummation  has  certainly  been  delayed 
beyond  my  own  expectations,  yet  under  any  cirfunistancos,  it  could 
hardly  have  been  expected  that  an  Institution  of  such  magnitude  and  im- 
portance could  be  peremptorily  disposed  of." 

I  might  add  other  evidences  to  show  that  my  acceptance  of  the  Presi- 
dency of  Kenyon  College  was  emphatically  an  act  of  self  sacrifice,  that 
it  was  so  regarded  by  both  parties,  and  that  Bishop  Mc  llvaine — haughtily 
as  he  now  speaks  on  that  subject — did  not  then  presume  to  think,  or 
" bep^in  to  think  that  I  was  under  any  obligations  to  him."  What  then 
could  have  been  my  inducement.'  I  answer  again,  in  the  language  of  my 
former  "  Statement,"  "  chiefly  my  long  cherished  and  uncompromising 
attachment"  lo  one  who  had  so  earnestly  "desired  lo  be  a  co-worker 
with  me" — "  lo  stand  by  him,  and  hold  up  his  hands  in  the  struggle  in 

•  I  have  before  me  the  draft  of  a  letter  to  a  friend  asking  his  advice  on  the 
subject,  on  the  very  day  (Auc.  15)  that  I  received  the  Bishop's  first  letter  an- 
nouncins  my  appointment,  in  which  the  interest  of  my  creditors  is  set  down 
as  the  most  important  point  to  be  considered. 

t  These  letters  were  considered  perfectly  satisfactory  at  the  time,  as  to  the 
cause  of  my  delay.  Yet  the  Bishop  now  uses  them,  by  disingenuous  quota- 
tions,  to  make  out  a  case  against  me. 


52 

which  he  was  supposed  to  be  engaged,  and  sustain  to  (he  utmost  of  my 
power  ami  upon  principle,  (he  honor  of  the  Episcopate."*  I  believed 
that  the  cause  of  "religion  and  leaining"  in  the  West  demanded  such 
sacrifices,  and  I  subinilled  lo  them  that  I  might  "consecrate  myself  to 
this  work"  of  honorable  usefulness  "  for  life." 

But  here  I  am  met  wilh  a  vague  pretence  that  I  did  not  fulfil  the  object 
of  my  mission  It  is  not  pretended  that  I  was  wanting  in  zeal,  or  dili- 
gence, or  fidelity,  or  honesty  of  purpose,  my  uttainrnents  also  are  pretty 
fairly  acknowledged — "nobody  ever  denied  these  things  at  Gambler," 
the  Bishop  himsell  tells  us.  But  then  it  is  obscurely  thrown  out  in  various 
forms  «'f  indirect  speech,  that,  after  all,  1  may  not  have  "  succeeded  in 
promotingthe  welfare  of  the  College" — n)y  measures  may  not  have  been 
"good  and  wise" — and  the  Bishop  was  "  pamfully  aware  that  in  nomi- 
naiing  me  he  had  committed  a  prodigious  mistake."  The  legal  bearing 
of  this  exce()tion  I  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  discuss;  every  body 
mU'it  see  that  the  thing  alleged,  if  it  were  even  verified  by  specification 
and  proof,  is  unworthy  of  the  least  notice  in  this  aspect.  Men  make 
"  prodigious  mistakes"  every  day  in  the  most  solemn  concerns  of  life, 
but  who  ever  heard  of  this  being  made  a  ground  tor  the  voidance  of  a 
contract .'  Nor  is  it  of  any  greater  value  as  a  formal  justification  of  the 
ACT  of  my  dismissal.  I  was  not  di  missed  upon  any  allegation  that  my 
measures  were  not  wise  and  good,  but  because  of  a  certain  feeling,  said 
(o  have  existed  among  the  students,  of  the  merits  of  whirh  the  Boaid  did 
not  pretend  to  speak.  The  whole  thing  now  alleged  is  manifestly  an 
after- thought,  intended  to  operate  upon  the  public  mind  to  my  prejudice, 
and  so  to  avert  popular  censure  from  the  perpetrators  of  an  atrocious  out- 
rage, and  in  this  light  only  I  notice  it. 

Observe  in  the  first  place,  if  you  plea<^e,  how  short  the  lime  since  the 
object  of  this  vituperative  insinuation  had  been  held  up,  by  the  author 
of  it,  as  the  glory  of  the  College,  and  a  great  acquisition  to  the  "cause 
of  Literature  and  Science  in  the  West;"  a  man  of  "  great  experience  in 
education,"  unit'ng  with  great  "devotion,  and  skill,"  and  Christian  zeal, 
the  "  upmost  kindness  of  manner  and  benevolence  of  disposition  "  Ob- 
serve also  that  these  laudatory  phrases  were  not  uttered  in  ignorance. 
The  object  of  them  had  been  in  the  most  intimate  and  confidential  inter- 
course with  the  writer,  his  bosom  friend,  for  15  years;  had  been  his  fa- 
vorite candidate  for  the  Vice- Presi;lency  in  1833,  and,  with  ditlicully, 
resisted  his  importunity  to  move  to  Gambler,  at  that  time;  had  been 
urged  by  him  again  in  1837,  wilh  scarcely  le.<;s  importunity,  to  put  in  his 
claims  to  anotlier  very  high  Academic  office  in  the  West;  and  finally  in 
1840  had  been  induced  to  accept  the  Presidency  of  Kenyon  College,  by 
consid'  ralons  of  personal  regaid  and  Christian  duly,  strongly  urged  upon 
him  by  the  same  individual.  To  suppose  that  Inere  could  have  been  any 
misapprehension  in  the  mind  of  the  Bishop  as  lo  the  character  of  his  nomi- 
nee, under  thes"  circumstances,  is  to  suppose  an  obluseness  of  under- 
standimr  for  which  he  is  not  very  likely  lo  gain  credit. 

A^ain,  n(/tice  if  you  please,  the  entire  want  of  consistency  between  the 
nature  of  the  allegation  and  the  mode  of  proceeding  upon  it.  Fidelity 
and  zeal,  and  honesty  of  purpose,  are  certainly  worth  something,  and  in 
the  very  difficult  and  responsible  station  in  which  I  was  placed,  one  would 

•  It  has  been  said  that  my  statement  of  the  condition  of  things  on  "  the 
Hill,'^  at  the  time  of  my  arrival,  was  incorrect,  and  by  implicalion  that  the 
Epiicopnte  was  not  in  the  condition  stated  I  shall  have  occasion  to  notice 
that  subject  presently,  but  in  the  mean  time,  what  do  you  suppose  the  Bishop 
means  in  his  letter  of  August  9th,  (quoted  above,)  by  his  "  troubles  being 
almost  over  in  case  (I)  accept  ?"  &c. 


53 

suppose  lliey  should  at  least  have  entitled  me  to  a  fair  and  impartial  hear- 
ing, even  though  opinions  might  differ  as  to  the  merit  of  my  acts.  Is  a 
man  of  eminent  attainments,  whose  Christian  character,  and  moral  worth, 
and  zeal  and  taithlulness  in  the  discharge  of  his  duly,  are  unquestionable, 
to  be  hulled  from  his  station  like  an  outlaw,  without  warning,  on  a  vugue 
and  irresponsible  suggestion — i he  mere  breath  of  human  ojiinion?  VV  iih 
what  consistency  are  his  character  and  professional  reputation  assailed 
afterwards  ?  Is  it  conceivable,  in  fine,  that  a  man  should  be  so  far  gone 
in  unwise  measures  as  to  have  incurred  any  forntal  Judicial  proceeding, 
whose  acts  had  never  before  in  a  single  instance  been  called  in  question. 

With  regard  to  the  actual  merits  of  my  administration,  1  pretend  to  no 
extraordinviry  claims,  neither  do  1  fear  the  utmost  sciutiny  of  fair  and 
candid  examination*  The  principles  on  which  I  acted  had  the  entire 
sanction  of  Bishop  IVIc  Ilvaine,and  are  beyond  all  question  the  only  prin- 
ciples on  which  Kenyon  College  can  have  any  just  claim  to  public  pa- 
tronage. I  had  and  s/i7/ have  the  firmest  conviction  that,  in  faithfully 
conloiming  all  my  administration  to  them,  I  was  laying  a  wide  and  suie 
foundation  for  its  permanent  and  extensive  usefulness;  and  I  believe,  m  t- 
withstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  that  1  have  the  witness  of  the  Bishop, 
and  ihe  Trustees,  and  the  Faculty,  and  the  Students,  and  the  Public  at 
large,  besides  a  volume  of  internal  evidence,  to  the  same  effect. 

This  is  not,  of  course,  the  place  to  enter  upon  a  formal  proof  of  this 
allegat  on;  but  I  may  without  impropriety  offer  a  few  larticulars  in  the 
way  of  illustration,  to  show  that  it  is  not  made  by  impulse  or  at  random. 
Some  of  the  evidences  from  fact  I  have  already  in  part  stated.  It  wrs 
shown  for  example,  that  the  number  of  ordinary  delinquencies  as  wellfs 
of  gross  offences,  and  the  amount  of  assessment^  for  damages,  were  all 
greally  diminished  duiing  the  period  of  my  administration;  and  it  mry 
be  added  without  fiear  of  contradiction,  that  the  general  regard  for  ordtr 
and  decorum,  the  sense  of  personal  character,  and  the  zeal  for  study,  had 
as  greatly  increased.  No  one  acquainted  with  the  College  can  deny, 
that  there  was  a  very  decided  improvement  in  the  character  of  the  stu- 
dents, as  gentlemen  and  as  s(  holars,  from  the  year  1841  to  1843  inclusive. 
In  Ihe  very  term  in  which  I  was  dismissed,  more  than  at  any  former  pe- 
riod, it  was  felt  that  the  College,  without  any  diminution  of  its  external 
patronage,  had  been  freed  almost  entirely  from  evil  influences  within 
itself;  and  that  it  could  now  be  safely  recommended  to  the  confidence  of 
the  most  sciupulous  and  careful  paient.  Do  these  things  intlicate  ineffi- 
ciency ? 

That  my  administration  was  generally  appreciated  on  this  account  I 
have  also  shown  in  part,  and  shall  now  proceed  to  illustrate  further  ; 
first,  by  an  extract  from  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  Address  to  the  Convention 
of  1841:  as  follows. 

"  The  new  organization  provided  for  by  the  changes  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  Theological  Seminary,  which  were  completed  during  the  year  1839-40, 

*  It  was  my  constant  aim  and  endeavor  during  all  my  Presidency,  to  draw 
public  attention  towards  the  College,  and  to  induce  the  Diocese  and  the  com- 
munity at  large  to  look  into  every  part  and  department  of  its  management. 
The  members  of  the  Convention  of  1841.  2,  and  3,  will  remember  that  these 
views  were  held  forth  on  each  of  these  occasions,  as  a  reason  for  the  Conven- 
tion meeting  habitually  on  the  day  after  commencement  at  Gambier. 
In  the  Convention  of  1843  I  aUo  moved  and  sustained  a  resolution  for  a  Visi- 
tori  il  Committee  to  attend  the  College  examinations  on  the  same  principle. 
Perhaps  some  will  remember  also  that  it  was  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  and 
the  prominent  adherents  of  the  Gambier  "  Clique"  that  chiefly  opposed  these 
several  propositions. 


5^ 

went  into  effect  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  winter  term.  It  was  not  however 
until  more  than  one  half  of  the  year  had  elapsed  that  the  College  could  feel 
any  distinct  benefit  from  the  new  system,  on  account  of  the  necessary  delay 
in  the  arrival  of  President  Douglass,  who  commenced  his  dulies  in  April  last. 
Since  then  I  can  truly  say,  and  none  can  know  the  present  state  of  the  Col- 
lege in  its  preparatory  departments  without  concurring  with  me,  that  great 
life  and  vigor  has  been  infused  into  all  its  government  and  instruction.  The 
greatest  degree  of  zeal  and  earnestness  animate  the  officers  ;  entire  harmony 
prevails  in  their  counsels  ;  the  instruction  of  the  classes  is  eminently  success- 
ful ;  the  spirit  of  the  students  is  that  of  cheerful  conformity  to  law,  zealous 
prosecution  of  study,  and  unusual  satisfaction  with  the  efforts  made  for  their 
improvement,  united  with  a  very  kindly  personal  relation  to  their  instructors. 
The  College  building  is  now  undergoing  a  thorough  inlernal  repair,  by  which 
its  aspect  in  reference  to  comfortable  accommodations  will  be  entirely  changed, 
and  the  indwelling  of  the  students  will  be  placed  on  a  very  desirable  footing.'' 

My  next  quotation  shall  be  from  the  Valedictory  Address  of  1842 ;  in 
re^aVd  to  which  please  remark  that  it  was  interpolated  by  the  Orator, 
after  the  body  of  his  Oration  had  been  overlooked  and  criticised,  and  was 
not  seen  or  heard  by  me  therefore  until  I  heard  it  on  the  platlorm;*  and 
furthermore  that  I  had  the  personal  assurance  both  of  the  speaker  and  of 
the  members  of  the  Class  generally,  that  it  was  no  unmeaning  compli- 
menl,  but  the  actual  sentiment  of  them  all;  It  followed  the  address  to  the 
Faculty,  in  the  following  words :  ' 

"  President  Douglass — "  Our  relations  with  you  have  been  so  peculiar 
and  interestins,  'hat  we  canno'  depart,  without  some  faint  expression  of  our 
thankfulness  for  the  friendly  manner  in  which  you  have  uniformly  treated 
us,  and  a  public  avowal  of  our  high  esteem  for  your  character,  and  attach- 
ment to  your  person.  During  the  eighteen  months  that  you  have  presided 
over  the  destinies  of  this  Instiluiion  we  have  daily  met  you  on  terms  of  fami 
liarity  and  confidence,  not  often  accorded  to  the  pupil,  by  his  instructor.  We- 
are  sensible  that  it  has  been  your  earnest  desire  to  render  our  intercourse 
with  you,  not  merely  instructive,  but  pleasant  and  improving.  We  have 
not  been  cold  observers  of  your  constant  attention  to  our  convenience  nnd 
comfort,  nor  uninterested  spectators  of  your  exertions  to  add  to  our  means 
of  enjoyment,  by  improving  the  natural  advantages  and  beauties  for  which 
this  place  is  distinguished. 

"  But  I  need  not  enumerate  the  labors,  nor  speak  of  those  traits  of  cha- 
racter which  have  won  our  affectionate  regard.  It  is  enough  to  sf>y,  that  we 
have  never  doubted  the  goodness  of  your  intentions,  but  have  at  all  times 
been  confident  that  your  aim  was  our  welfare.  With  this  estimate  of  your 
worth,  we  now  leave  the  scene  of  your  instructions;  and  wherever  our  lots 
shall  be  cast,  there  you  may  look  for  those  who  are  ready  and  willing  to  do 
all  that  in  them  lies  to  defend  your  reputation  and  secure  your  happiness. 
Farewell !" 

I  five  also  an  extract  from  an  editorial  notice  of  the  same  commence- 
ment, in  one  of  the  Mt.  Vernon  papers,  the  writer  of  which,  (as  well 
as  the  sources  of  his  information,)  was  then,  and  is  still  unknown  to  me. 

"  President  Douglass  explained  some  important  changes  in  the  College 
discipline,  introduced  by  the  present  Faculty  within  the  last  year.  While 
we  have  not  room  to  remark  upon  them,  justice  requires  of  us  to  say  that 
they  are  changes  that  will  gain  for  the  Institution  a  character  which  few 
seminaries  of  learning  deserve.  President  Douglass,  we  are  informed,  is 
much  beloved  by  the  students  and  respected  as  a  father  by  them.  Great 
improvement  has  been  made  in  the  College  grounds  since  last  year." 

•  Bishop  Mc  Ilvaine  was  seated  on  the  platform  at  the  same  time. 


55 

In  the  same  strain  I  might  quote  a  multitude  of  letters  from  the  parents 
of  pupils,  and  from  studenis  after  iheir  leaving  College.  A  large  file  of 
them  is  before  me,  almost  every  letter  of  wliich  is  inters[)ersed  more 
or  less  wilh  expressions  of  approbation  and  thankfulness.  Not  to  occupy 
too  much  surface  however,  1  content  myself  with  a  single  example  frona 
a  very  estimable  and  examplary  student,  whose  leaving  College  belbre 
the  completion  of  his  course  is  very  likely  to  have  been  charged  to  my 
account.  It  is  dated  in  February,  1843: — "  No  length  of  time,"  he  re- 
marks, "can  ever  efface  from  my  memory  the  recollection  of  one  whom 
1  cannot  regard  but  as  a  father.  Never,  so  long  as  life  lasts,  shall  1  for- 
get your  kindness  to  me  while  at  Kenyon.  I  think  at  times  that  I  can 
still  hear  the  sound  of  your  voice,  warning  me  and  my  fellew  students, 
wilh  all  the  anxiety  of  a  parent,  to  avoid  those  shoals  and  quicksands  on 
which  young  persons  are  so  apt  to  fall  and  be  wrecked — that  1  can  hear 
you  telling  us  of  the  path  of  duty  and  honor,  and  pointing  out  the  way 
to  distinction  and  usefulness."  *  *  *  <«  From  the  improvements 
which  have  been  and  are  still  being  made  in  the  College,  1  hope  to  see 
her  at  no  distant  day  take  that  station  among  the  institutions  uf  our  coun- 
try, which  her  Iriends  would  have  her  take." 

The  following  is  from  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  dated 
January,  1843: — "  I  assure  you  I  think  of  you  very  frequently,  and  do 
hope  that  things  may  be  so  arranged  to  your  comfort  and  satisfaction, 
that  Kenyon  College  may  become  all  that  you  desire  to  make  it."  *  * 
I  trust  you  will  still  have  patience  with  our  diOiculties  at  Gambler.*  Do 
not,  until  it  would  be  wrong  to  do  otherwise,  yield  up  your  efforts  in  the 
cause  of  the  first  Institution  in  the  west.  I  know  that  you  have  things 
to  contend  with,  sorely  trying  to  your  temper,  your  patience,  and  )  our 
Christian  fortitude.  *  *  *  I  consider  your  service  of  immense  value 
to  the  Institution,"  &c.  &c.  I  might  make  other  quotati(>ns  from  the 
letters  of  the  same  individual,  and  from  other  Trustees,  to  the  same  ef- 
fect. 

The  following  is  from  a  prominent  clergyman  of  Ihe  diocese: — "I 
feel  a  lively  interest  in  your  present  improvements  at  Kenyon.  The  wel- 
fare of  our  Western  Church  depends  much  on  the  prosperity  of  the  Col- 
lege; and  the  higher  the  standard  of  education  there,  the  more  able  will 
our  young  clergy  prove,  and  the  greater  influence  will  our  church  at 
large  attain  to.  I  wish  you  every  success,  and  every  blessing  on  your 
labors." 

The  following  is  also  from  a  clergyman,  high  in  the  confiilence  of 
Bishop  Mcllvaine,  and  dated  in  June,  1843: — "I  would  comply  with 
your  request,  if  for  no  other  reason,  from  a  principle  of  gratitude  for 
the  eminent  service  you  are  rendering  the  Church  of  my  affections,  in 
your  elficient  superintendance  of  every  thing  connected  with  the  interests 
of  Kenyon.  I  want  you  to  feel  that  the  Clergy  of  our  Church  appreciate  your 
able  and  hearty  services.  I  want  you  to  feel  that  we  are  thankful,  and  that 
we  would  rejoice  in  any  opportunity  of  surrounding  vou  wilh  an  affection- 
ate and  hearty  co-operation.  You  are  serving  God  vviih  abilities,  which 
few  if  any  of  us  possess;  You  occupy  a  place  on  the  walls  of  our  Zion, 
second  in  importance  to  none.  Most  fervently  therefore  do  I  implore  for 
you  grace  to  persevere  without  wavering." 

The  following  is  also  from  a  Clergyman  ver}'  favourably  situated  for 
knowing  what  he  states,  written  after  my  removal  : — "  As  regards  the 
College  I  may  be  allowed  to  bear  evidence  to  what  1  consider  a  distinct 

•  Alluding  to  the  pecuniary  embarrassments,  just  after  the  special  conven- 
tion at  Newark  ;  and  in  answer  to  some  remarks  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
Agent,  by  which  considerable  excitement  had  been  produced  in  the  Faculty. 


m 

fact ;  that  wherever  I  went  you  were  spoken  of  in  (he  highest  terms ;  and 
there  appeared  to  be  a  general  impression  among  Ihe  people  that  now 
things  will  go  well.  Your  Presidency  seemed  lo  me  to  establish  confi- 
dence in  the  Institution,  and  I  never  heard  one  syllable  of  doubt  or  un- 
popularity breathed  against  you." 

A  corresponding  strain  of  remark  was  constantly  made,  viva  voce,  by 
the  members  of  the  Convention  and  by  the  friends  and  patrons  of  the  In- 
stitution visiting  "the  Hill"  from  all  parts  of  the  country.  During  the 
sessions  of  the  Convention,  thfe  prevailing  topic  in  the  intervals  of  actual 
business,  was  the  improved  condition  of  the  Institution,  in  every  respect 
of  which  any  judgment  could  be  formed  in  time  of  vacation.  Compari- 
sons between  the  pust  and  the  present,  always  complimentary  to  the  latter, 
were  in  the  mouth  of  almost  every  visitor  who  had  ever  been  on  "  the 
Hill"  before.*  It  was  constantly  the  subject  of  complimentary  language 
to  me  ;  and  persons  otherwise  unacquainted  with  me  not  unlrequenlly 
introduced  themselves  for  the  purjmse  of  speaking  it. 

I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  illustrate  by  facts,  and  also  by  some  evidences 
of  current  and  responsible  opinions,  that  my  administration  was  in  sub- 
stance, as  well  as  in  common  repute,  an  efficient  and  beneficial  adminis- 
tration to  the  ends  for  which  the  Presidency  was  conferred  upon  me.  It 
remains  to  notice  the  few  particulars,  in  which  the  "  reply"  seems  to 
controvert  this  position,  with  anything  like  fact.  And  first  as  to  the 
management  of  the  Matriculation  system  (p.  42.)  This  the  writer  says, 
was  erected  in  theory  and  broken  down  in  practice  till  it  became  almost 
or  quite  a  nullity."  The  assertion  is  simply  untrue.  The  .system  had, 
as  it  was  expected  to  have,  peculiar  difficulties  to  encounter  on  its  first 
introduction.  The  means  of  estimating  the  character  of  the  studerts  was 
less  perfect  than  it  would  nndoul)tedly  be  after  the  system  had  been  for 
some  years  in  operation-;  but  in  the  mean  time  there  was  no  lack  of  care, 
— the  wisdom  of  the  whole  faculty  was  employed, — to  make  it  in  practice 
•what  it  was  in  theory,  a  moral  restraint  ;  and  that  it  was  so  in  an  eminent 
degree,  I  most  solemnly  aver,  with  a  much  better  opponunity  of  know- 
ing, than  any  other  person  could  possibly  have. 

The  Bishop  notices  also  the  Patronage  system,  and  pretends  to  illus- 
trate its  operation  by  a  distorted  account  of,  what  he  could  not  but  have 
known  to  be,  a  special  and  peculiar  case.  He  repiesents  a  youth,  who 
was  committed  to  my  care  with  a  deposit  of  $200  previously  estimated 
by  me  for  the  expenses  of  one  year.  After  "  fifteen  months"  residence 
(having  been  dismissed)  "  his  father  [it  is  said]  had  been  called  by  me  to 
p;iy  $350  more  which  he  paid  [making  $550  in  all]  and  more  is  still 
called  for  "  "  The  father,"  it  is  fuither  said  "  has  received  no  satisfac- 
tory account  of  the  matter,  and  the  sum  still  called  for,  h»  refuses  lo  pay." 

I  must  give  (he  Bishop  credit  for  no  small  degree  of  art  in  getting  up 
(his  case  for  effect.  How  far  it  is  entitled  (o  confidence  we  shall  see. 
My  first  commentary  upon  it  shall  be  an  extract  from  Ihe  last  letter  of  the 
father  of  the  youth  referred  to,  dated  August  5,  1844,  some  months  belore 
the  reply  was  written,  and  covering  a  remittance  of  $75  ; — "  The  sum  of 

•  It  was  on  an  occasion  of  this  kind,  in  the  latter  part  of  1842,  when  this 
comparison  was  strongly  expressed  by  a  visitor  in  the  presence  of  Bishop, 
Mcllvaine,  that  the  latter  betrayed,  for  the  first  time  in  my  presence,  but  most 
unequivocally  the  jealousy  to  which  I  have  alluded  in  a  note  to  my  former 
statement  (p.  25)  ;  and  a  very  short  time  after,  occurred  the  outbreak  of 
indignation  la  his  study,  mentioned  in  that  statement,  (p,  29.) 


57 

$75,"  he  writes,  '*  covers  the  amount  of  what  you  have  paid,  with  interest 
lor  a  period  somewhat  over  one  year.  I  shall  be  in  New  York  about 
the  time  of  the  General  Convention  [d.  v.]  and  shall  be  glad  to 
see  you  and  pay  any  balance  which  you  think  is  justly  due."  The 
balance  here  spoken  of,  has  reference  to  one,  of  two  or  three  small 
bills,  not  due  to  me,  but  which  I  had  merely  forwarded  at  the  request  of 
the  parties  concerned.  There  was  sonie  uncertaii.ly,  whether  I  might  not 
have  paid  this  one  at  my  own  risk,  but  not  finding  the  voucher,  1  did  not 
include  il  in  my  return  of  bills  paid;  and  it  was  the  adjustment  of  this 
(possible)  balance,  to  which  the  quotation  refers.  It  will  be  seen  then 
that  so  far  as  I  was  concerned  the  statement  that  "  more  is  still  called  for 
and  refused,"  is  destitute  of  truth.  Every  cent  rendered  in  my  abstract 
as  having  been  paid  or  pledged  by  me,  was  more  than  covered  by  the  §75 
remitted,  and  the  party  was  even  willing  to  have  settled  an  additional 
balance,  if  upon  inquiry  it  was  found  to  have  been  so  paid.  The  state- 
ment implying  that  1  had  given  no  satisfactory  account  of  the  matter,  is 
also,  as  to  me,  incorrect.  I  wrote  in  succession  five  long  letters,  to  the 
father,  explaining  with  minute  particularity  the  conduct  of  his  son.  To 
these  letters  I  received  no  answer,  and  after  waiting  eight  or  nine  months, 
till  I  began  to  think  of  collecting  the  balance  of  my  disbursements  in 
some  other  way,  I  met  a  private  opportuniiy  and  sent  the  naked  bills  with 
a  request  for  their  immediate  payment, — and  then,  for  the  first  time,  it 
was  made  known  to  me  by  a  letter  of  complaint  from  the  father  that  none 
of  my  previous  letters  had  reached  him*  I  wrote  another  long  letter  in 
reply,  but  while  I  was  meditating  upon  the  means  of  sending  it,  with  the 
certainty  of  its  being  received,  I,  and  my  family,  were  overwhelmed  with 
our  own  troubles,  and  this  letter,  getting  mingled  with  other  papers,  was 
lost  sight  of.  A  briefer ex|)lanation,  written  after  my  return  to  New  Yoik, 
was  all  that  my  situation  and  engagements  then  |)ermitted.  1  hat  some 
e.xplanations  may  have  still  been  wanting,  to  the  party  concerned,  under 
these  circumstances,  is  very  probable;  but  if  so,  1  repeal  it  was  not  from 
the  want  of  any  possible  care  or  pains  taking  on  my  part,  and  of  this,  that 
gentleman  was  made  aware  by  the  letter  just  referred  to. 

The  amount  of  expenditure  in  the  case  of  this  young  man,  slated  to 
have  been  §550,  is  afterwards  more  correctly  stated  at  §-525.  In  either 
case,  however,  it  was  without  doubt  most  extravagant,  and  such  as  any 
father  would  have  just  rea.son  to  complain  of;  but  before  the  responsi- 
bility is  placed  upon  the  College  patron,  it  should  be  observed,  First: 
That  the  father,  with  particular  views  on  the  subject  of  expense,  and 
deprecating  any  thiny:  like  stint,  enjoined  upon  me,  again  and  again,  to 
supply  his  son  on  a  liberal  scale,  and  to  advance  beyond  the  amount  de- 
posited, if  necessary  for  that  purpose;  and  when  at  the  end  of  the  first 
year  I  rendered  him  an  account  of  $320,  (in  all,)  including  College  ad- 
vances for  the  following  term,  (a  part  also  having  been  incurred  surrep- 
titiously by  the  son,)  he  entirely  approved  of  my  doings,  and  reiterated 
strongly  the  sentiments  just  mentioned.  Secondly:  The  aggregate  sum 
$525  comprehends  several  items  of  extraneous  expense,  not  embraced  or 
supposed  to  be  embraced  in  any  estimate  of  ordinary  expenses.  Such  as 
an  excursion  to  the  North  in  the  Vacation  of  1842— $35  for  his  expenses 
home — an  outfit  of  extra  clothing  for  the  same  occasion — the  surreptitious 
bills  above  mentioned ;  (which  finally  proved  more  considerable  than  was 
at  first  supposed) — and  a  considerable  amount  of  expenses  incurred  at  Mt. 
Vernon,  (after  he  withdrew  from  theCollege  and  from  my  oversight,)  the 
payment  of  which  could  not  be  avoided  : — All  together  amounting  to 

•  That  they  had  been  received  and  read  by  his  son,  however,  was  msde 
known  to  me  by  a  token  not  to  be  misunierstood. 

8 


^ 


about  $170  or  g-180 — which  being  deducted  from  the  525,  leaves  a  nett 
amounl  oi'  S'350  for  his  proper  expenses  for  one  year  and  a  half  (Aca- 
demic reckoning')  under  my  patronage. 

I  could  give,  if  the  occasion  required  it,  many  other  particulars  of  these 
surreptitious  bills  and  the  expendilures  at  Mount  Vernon ,  that  would  exon- 
erate me  iiom  all  blame  in  regard  to  any  of  them.  Most  of  them  were 
for  articles  of  necessity,  (money  furnished  by  me  for  such  articles  having 
been  diverted  to  other  objects.)  These  could  have  been  recovered  at 
law.  A  few  of  a  more  doubtful  character  might  not  have  been  recovera- 
ble, but  being  peremptorily  demanded,  an.i  suit  threatened,  they  would, 
at  least,  have  detained  the  young  man  some  weeks  in  Mount  Vernon, 
where  his  associations  were  of  the  most  demoralizing  sort.  In  my  opin- 
ion it  was  of  vital  importance  to  disengage  him  from  those  associations 
and  send  him  home  immediately,  and  such  also  was  the  urgent  request  of 
his  father.  Without  a  moment's  hesitation,  therefore,  I  assumed  ttie  pay- 
ment of  those  bills,  and  got  him  off.  1  had  been  requested  to  act  for  him 
as  1  would  act  for  my  own  child,  atid,  whether  appreciated  or  not,  (God 
is  my  witness)  I  did  so  most  faithfully. 

The  use  made  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine  cf  this  case  would  stand  as  a  con- 
spicuous example  of  sophistry,  if  it  were  not  lost  in  the  multitude  of  other 
like  examples.  Ii  is  the  substitution  of  an  ol;vious  exception  to  a  general 
rule  for  the  rale  itself  ;  a  mode  of  reasoning  which  would  at  once  break 
down  all  distinction  between  truth  and  falsehood  in  morals.  With  re- 
gard to  my  patronage  duties  generally,  I  may  ad^l,  that  they  were  ever 
held  by  me  as  of  the  most  solenm  obligation,  and  discharged  with  uncom- 
promising devotion,  even  in  the  midst  of  other  and  very  pressing  duties. 
About  half  the  students  in  the  College  at  the  time  of  my  dismissal  were 
my  clients,  and  though  it  may  be  that  my  efforts  were  frustrated  in  a  few 
instances,  as  those  of  the  most  careful  parents  sometimes  are,  by  the  wil- 
fulness or  wickedness  of  those  for  whose  benefit  they  were  intended,  I 
have  the  happiness  to  know  that,  in  general  they  were  justly  appreciated, 
and  in  some  cases  conducive  in  no  small  degree,  to  the  permanent  wel- 
fare and  happiness  of  the  client. 

The  next  set  of  allegations  to  be  examined  in  order,  are  those  which 
relate  to  the  expenditures,  made  or  administered  by  me  at  sun^lry  times 
on  ihe  College  and  College  premises  ;  than  which,  probably  no  part  of 
the  pamphlet  is  more  unsparingly  or  more  rancorously  virulent.*  Turn, 
if  you  please,  to  the  36th  and  following  pages  for  an  example.  The 
Bishop  here  gives  an  account  of  the  repairs  in  the  College  building  in 
1841,  and  of  my  connection  with  them.  These  repairs  he  first  tells  us, 
were  orisrinaled  by  Messrs.  Blake  and  Badger,  of  Milnor  Hall,  so  that  I 
was  entitled  to  no  credit  on  that  score  ;  Ihey  were  finally  assented  to, 
however,  in  a  conference  with  me,  on  condition  that  I  would  •'  make 
such  arrangements  with  the  persons  to  be  employed  that  no  payment 
should  be  demanded  except  at  such  and  such  intervals."  This  condition 
he  goes  on  to  say,  was  neglected  by  me,  and  altera  few  pariphrases  upon 
the  troubles  that  ensued,  it  comes  out  at  last  that  this  was  the  cause  of 
all  the  financial  difficulties  of  the  Institution."  "Thus  were  weswamped. 
Here  was  the  crisis  which  required  the  special  convention  to   consider 

•  The  motive  to  this,  will  be  better  understood  by  a  reference  to  what  I 
have  elsewhere  said,  on  the  theory  of  the  whole  movement,  viz.  to  divert 
from  Bishop  M.  to  me  the  odium  of  his  mismanagement,  as  head  of  the  trust. 
The  Bishop  has  a  peculiar  tact  in  this  way.  At  the  convention  at  Newark 
all  the  responsibility  of  these  embarrassments  was  thrown  back  upon  his  pre- 
decessor, Bishop  Chase. 


59 

whether  to  meet  (he  debts  by  sale  of  lands  or  otherwise.  Thus  came  the 
necessity  of  (he  application  made  last  year  at  the  east  and  in  Ohio  for 
^30,000" — "  eleven  buckram  men/'  again,  "  grown  out  of  two." 

To  any  one  who  has  taken  note  of  (he  progress  of  things  at  Gambier, 
or  attended  to  the  representation  of  its  embarrassments  elsewhere  made, 
by  Bishop  M.,  a  re|)ly  to  this  fanfaronade  can  scarcely  be  necessary.  I 
shall  notice  it,  but  as  briefly  as  possible.  In  the  call  of  the  special  con- 
vention, the  Bishop  speaks  of  it  as  a  notorious  fact  that  (lie  institution 
had  always  been  greatly  embarrassed  with  pecuniary  diflficulties.  In 
writing  to  me  in  1840-1,  he  represen(cd  it  as  very  nearly  "  swamped"; 
and  when  I  conversed  with  him  on  the  subject  soon  after  my  arrival,  he 
put  entirely  out  of  sight  (he  possibility  of  any  o(her  alternative  than  the 
sale  of  the  lands  for  relief.  What  else  can  we  do  ?"  was  his  reply  to 
every  thing  1  said  in  opposition  tosjile.*  The  chief  source  of  alarm  then 
and  always,  was  (he  New-York  mor(gage — ^15,000 — of  which  (he  in(e- 
rest  had  not  been  paid  for  nearly  two  years.  It  was  understood  when  (be 
Ohio  delega(es  wen(  on  (o  (he  general  convention  of  1841,  (hat  they  and 
the  Bishop  were  (o  make  a  join(  effort  (o  "  stave  off"  that  claim  ;  but  (he 
latter  writing  to  me  on  the  subject  whilu  in  New  York,  s|  oke  in  utter 
despair  of  accomplishing  any  thing  ;  and  it  was  the  ultimatum  of  the  ad- 
ministrator of  Mr.  Ward's  estate  (hat  chiefly  made  (he  crisis  on  which 
(he  special  convention  was  convoked.  Listen  to  the  Bishop  himselt  on 
this  subject.  "  Much  ihe  larger  part  of  (he  debt  is  owed  (o  an  es(a(e  in 
New  York  now  in  (he  hands  of  an  administrator,  who  holds  a  mortgage 
upon  all  (he  real  esta(e  of  the  Ins(itu(ion,"  *  *  *  "  He  will  no(  with, 
hold  his  hand  from  the  lands  unless  (he  deb(be  forthwi(h  discharged,"  &c. 

In  his  address  to  (he  convendon.  Bishop  M.  gives  an  account  of  the 
different  items  of  expenditure  out  of  which  the  debt — about  *^-36,000  in 
all — had  arisen, — beginning  wi(h  a  prfc((y  large  old  score  charged  (o  (he 
adminis(ra(ion-|  of  his  predecessor,  Bishop  Chase.  Then  comes  a  sum 
for  improvement  of  lands,  and  buildings,  including  (he  noble  edifice 
erec(ed  under  (he  eye  of  Bishop  M.  tor  his  own  accommodation.  Then 
his  salary  for  several  years,  and  (he  expense  of  his  removal  to  Ohio.  *  * 
And  finally  the  repairs  here  alluded  to,  of  which  he  speaks  in  (he  follow- 
ing terms  : 

"  The  last  particular  in  this  account  is  an  expenditure  upon  the  repairs  of 
"  the  Colle2;e  building,  and  furnishing  the  rooms  with  certain  articles  of 
"  standing  furniture  for  the  sake  of  the  better  ensuring  order  and  propriety 
"  therein  I  am  aware  that  some  have  supposed  there  was  extravagance  in 
"  this,  considering  the  indebtedness  of  the  Institution,  and  I  believe  it  was 
"  made  a  handle  of  by  some  to  its  prejudice.  In  justice  to  the  gentleman 
"  under  whose  supervision  that  measure  was  carried  forward,  I  feel  bound 
"  to  say  that  while  it  was  possible  there  might  have  been  better  terms  with 
"  the  contractors,  as  to  times  o(  payment,  there  is  not  the  least  reasonable 
"  doubt  that  all  the  expenditure  was  good  and  very  useful,  and  the  great  bur- 
"  den  of  it  absolutely  demanded.     The  College  had  undergone  no  repairs  of 

•  Mr.  Fox  (Sands  and  Fox,  of  N.  Y.)  will  recollect  that  when  at  Gambier 
in  the  summer  of  1841,  I  requested  him  to  speak  to  the  Bishop  on  this  sub- 
ject. All  that  was  wanting  was  good  financial  and  prudential  management, 
in  the  office  and  over  the  grounds  :  Clergymen  were  unfit  for  such  a  manage- 
ment, and  this  unfitness  was  the  real  element  of  all  our  trouble. 

t  It  now  appears  that  a  specific  asset  was  left  by  Bishop  Chase  for  the 
express  purpose  of  paying  off  all  arrearages  created  by  him  ;  viz.  the  "  north 
section  of  College  lands."  These  were  afterwards  sold  for  about  $22,000, 
and  the  "  arrearages"  were  only  quoted  at  $20,000.  Yet  the  whole  o(^  the 
latter  are  put  down  in  Bishop  M.'s  expose  as  so  much  debit  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  Bishop  C. 


60 

"  any   permanence   since   it  was  built.    Its  condition  was  a  disgrace.    We 
"  were  either  to  be  ashamed  to  receive  students  or  make  repairs." 

This  language  expresses  in  very  moderate  terms,  the  sentiment  under 
which  1  put  my  hand  to  these  improvements.  My  first  visit  to  the  Col- 
lege building  filled  me  with  surprise  and  disgust,  at  the  foul  and  dilapi- 
dated slaie  of  it,  regarding  it  as  a  place  of  habitation  for  young  genllemen. 
Early  in  tlie  summer  (1841),  1  drew  the  attention  of  the  Faculty  to  the 
subject, — got  a  special  committee  raised, —  put  myself  upon  it, — spent 
some  days  in  exploring  the  whole  extent  of  the  evil,  and  drew  up  a  report, 
which  being  highly  approved  by  the  Faculty,  I  was  authorized  to  coinmu- 
riiciite  to  the  Bishoj).  As  the  evil  was  a  very  serious  one  however,  and 
some  expense  would  have  to  be  incurred,  I  requested  the  members  to  co- 
operate with  me  in  bringing  it  stron<ily  to  his  mind,  and  purposely  kept 
back  my  report  until  it  was  known  that  some  of  them  had  seen  him  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  suggestioi.* 

The  CO  currence  of  the  Bishop  being  at  length  obtained,  and  the  ar- 
rangements made,  I  entered  upon  the  work,  immediately  aftercommence- 
nient,  and  in  about  eight  weeks,  with  unceasing  toil,  and  care,  and  labonr 
and  vigdance, — having  western  men  and  western  mechanics  to  deal 
with, — und  using,  with  my  own  hands,  as  occasion  required,  the  paint 
brush,  the  hammer,  tl.e  hod,  or  the  wheel  barrow; — I  succeeded  in  re- 
newing and  finishing  the  whole  inferior  of  the  building,  wood,  plaister, 
paint,  and  paper, — and  furnished  it  with  bed-steads  and  matresses,  chairs 
tables  and  wash  stands  complete.! 

The  Bishop  look  the  liveliest  interest  in  the  whole  proceeding  at  the 
time — ventured  into  the  dust  occasionally  to  cheer  and  encourage  me,  and 
spoke  in  the  most  laudatory  terms  of  what  was  doing,  to  the  Convention  at 
Chillicolhe  His  letters  from  New  York  where  he  went  to  attend  the  Gene- 
ral Convention,  breathe  the  same  spirit.  But  now  turn  to  the  sj)irit  ofthe 
"  Reply  ;" — Is  it  conceivable  that  it  could  have  flown  from  the  same  pen  ? 
My  neglect  in  not  attending  to  a  certain  stipulation,  in  the  making  ofthe 
contract, — the  consequences  of  that  neglect, — the  accumulation  of  conse- 
quences as  the  ball  rolls  on, — crescit  eundo, — till  the  whole  Institution 
WA^  •'  swim  >t.f "  The  answer  to  all  this,  however,  is  very  brief.  I  did 
NOT  MAKH  THE  CONTRACT.  The  Workmen  were  engaged  by  the 
agent;  the  plaisterer  and  his  men  came  to  commence  the  work  without 
my  having  spoken  a  word  to  them,  nor  did  I  know  anythmg  about  the 
terms  on  which  they  were  engaged.  I  may  have  catered  for  a  hand  or 
two  in  the  progress  ofthe  work,  but  if  so,  it  was  upon  conditions  pre- 

*  This  accounts  for  the  part  assigned  in  the  reply  to  Messrs.  Blake  & 
Badger. 

t  The  whole  expense  of  furniture  was  about  $S00,  and  of  repairs  $1300:  in 
return  lor  which,  an  addition  of  $2.00  was  put  upon  the  room  rent  and  $2  00 
charged  for  use  of  furniture,  makin?  an  additional  annual  receipt  of  $260  (on 
65  Colle2;e  and  Grammar  School  Students)  for  an  outlay  of  $2100.  The 
"  repairs"  were  estimated  before  hand,  at  $S00,  but  when  we  came  to  touch 
the  plaister,  it  fell  down  in  masses  over  our  heads,  and  had  to  be  almost  en- 
tirely removed.  Much  of  the  wood  work  was  also  found  so  saturated  with 
vermin,  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  remove  it  very  extensively  ;  hence  the  in- 
crease of  cost. 

JThere  is  another  version  of  the  Mouvt  Vernon  Suits,  which  are  here  said  to 
have  precipitated  the  crisis.  They  were  brought,  or  brought  about,  to  make 
another  gentleman  (the  agent  Dr.  Crittenden,)  unpopular,  and  get  him  to  re- 
tign.  The  chief  of  them,  was  for  an  account  with  a  firm,  of  which  the  senior 
partner  stepped  into  the  vacated  agency  the  moment  it  became  vacant. 


61 

viously  established  and  without  assuming  any  responsibility  in  that  re- 
spect at  all.  With  regard  to  the  iurniluie,  it  did  fall  in  my  way  to  nego- 
tiate a  contract  for  the  article  of  bed-steads,  but  even  this  was  in  an  un- 
derstanding with  the  agenl,  and  duly  reported  to  him. 

But  there  is  still  a  sequel  to  this  matter  more  malignant  if  possible  than 
the  main  allegation  ;  and  in  the  discussion  of  which  Bishop  M'livaine  is 
enabled  to  place  in  striking  contrast  his  devotion  to  the  welfaie  of  the 
institution,  ai.d  mine ;  for  example,  "  In  the  midst  of  the  suits  which  had 
now  come  upon  us,  when  the  Bishop,  to  save  expense,  was  teaching  in 
two  professorships  in  the  Theolo<iical  Seminary.  [N.  B.  The  whole 
rank  and  tile  of  that  Institution,  including  the  two  College  Tutors,  was 
three  Students  !  .']  Mr.  D.  brings  in  a  bill  of  §-82  for  that  very  labour, 
&c.  eighty  two  Dollars  charged  for  the  labours  of  a  vacation  by  the 
President,  while  the  Bishop  hao  been  labouring  twelve  years  in  gratuitious 
instructions!  charged  too  in  the  midst  of  the  embarrassments  and  trialsof 
the  institution,  when  the  Bishop  and  all  others  were  considering  what  to 
do  to  keep  the  College  from  sinking."  How  disinterested  the  Bishop  ! 
How  selfish  the  President  !  !  The  Bishop  seems  to  forget  that  a  little 
while  before  he  brought  in  a  bill  for  g-80  for  teaching  one  of  my  classes 
while  1  was  detained  at  Brooklyn.  But  perhaps  it  makes  a  difference  that 
it  was  not  brought  '*  m  the  midst  of  the  suits."  Be  it  so,  I  will  not  spend 
time  upon  these  bagatelles-  Let  us  go  to  that  which  was  the  veritable 
substance  of  all  the  suits,  the  debt.  It  amounted,  you  will  recollect,  to 
about  ^36,000.  Would  you  believe  it,  that  upwards  of  $15,000  of  it- 
more  than  two  fifths  of  the  whole — was  incurred  (either  directly,  or  by 
diverting  the  funds  of  the  institution,  to  the  purposes  of  the  Diocees,) 
for  the  accomniodation  of  this  very,  disinterested  nan!  His  residence, 
second  to  none  iri  Ohio,  had  been  built ;  his  salary  for  several  of  the  first 
years,  paid  ;  all  his  expenses  in  moving  his  family  from  Brooklyn  to 
Gambler,  added  to  the  debt,  and  adding  also,  its  interest  to  the  other  bur- 
densof  the  institution  for  some  eight  or  ten  years  !  I  might  speak  of 
other,  local,  facilities  enjoyed  by  Bishop  M.,  besides  all  this  :  but  I  let 
them  pass.  1  do  not  dwell  \ipon  the  things  here  mentioned  as  regards 
their  propriety  or  impropriety  in  themselves,  but  I  do  presume  to  question 
the  taste  of  a  man  who,  has  been  so  well  cared  for,  and  whose  con- 
venience and  comfort  have  made  so  considerable  items  in  the  indebted- 
ness, of  the  Institution,  taking  so  much  credit  to  himself  for  hisdtsm/er- 
estedness.* 

My  explanation  of  the  obnoxious  charge,  the  Bishop  broadly  repudiates. 
"He  had  no  claim,"  he  says  "no  bill  of  limber  was  ever  heard  of  by  the 
Bishop,"  &c.  With  all  due  deference,  I  must  correct  this  statement.  I  re- 
peat in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  a  W/o/"^"nj6er  wasthegist, — the  es- 
sential matter  of  the  whole  conference.  Dr.  Crittenden  was  settling  u|» 
his  affairs  to  leave  ;  I  found  a  bill  of  limber  charged  in  my  a.count,  which 
1  supposed  had  been  furnished,  as  timber  for  like  purposes  was  furnished 
to  Mr.  Ross  and  others,  without  charge.  I  objected  to  the  charge,  and 
carried  my  claim  to  the  Bishop,  with  whom  themalter  was  fully  discussed. 
He  made  no  objeclion  to  the  principle,  but  feared  the  'precedent,  as  Dr 
C.  and  others  had  built  fences,  and  would  expect  the  same  allowance. 
Returning  to  the  office,  I  was  informed  ttiat  the  principle  of  allowing 
compensation  for  extra  services  in  vacation,  had  been  settled  in  the  case 
of  one  of  the  Tutors  ;  and  as  my  claim  had  been  refused  to  save  a  prece- 

•  The  Bishop's  talk  to  the  people  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn  about  the  hard- 
ships and  poverty  of  his  condition  at  Gambler  (!)  is  much  of  the  same  charac- 
ter. He  is  a  comfortable  farmer,  with  an  abundant  salary,  and  money  at  in- 
terest ;  and  lives  on  the  fat  of  a  most  plenteous  land. 


62 

dent,  I  thought  it  not  unjustifiable  to  use  a  fair  precedent,  in  return,  to 
save  myself.  1  accordingly  drew  up  the  bill  referred  to,  and  called  a 
second  time  upon  the  Bishop,  to  whom,  the  whole  matter  was  minutely 
and  particularly  explained.  The  Bishop,  according  to  the  Reply,  and 
in  his  account  of  the  matter  elsewhere,  assumed  a  very  magisterial  tone, 
— refusing  to  allow  the  whole  bill,  and  he  even  affects  to  repeat  the  very 
words  ill  which  his  refusal  was  expressed.  I  again  declare,  with  the 
most  clear  and  peifect  assurance,  that  no  such  tone  was  assumed,  nor  any 
such  words  used,  on  the  occasion.  The  Bishop  did  not  refuse  any  part  of 
the  account.  The  reduction  from  ^'2.00  to  i$1.50,  per  diem,  was  my  own 
voluntary  act  ;  suggested  by  myself,  on  the  principle  that  it  would  then, 
cover  the  timber  fuinished/fo;»  tke  College  Saw-mill,  and  with  this  I  was 
willing  to  be  content.* 

But  I  am  lo  notice  yet  some  other  matters  Cof  account)  of  a  later  date, 
to  which  the  Bishop  is  pleased  to  allude  in  the  same  amiable  and  liberal 
terms.  "  All  other  expenditures,"  he  observes,  p.  38-9,  "  which  Mr. 
D.  involved  himself  in,  were  deeply  regretted  by  the  Bishop,  because  he 
knew  he  could  not  afford  them."  "  He  was  only  injuring  the  Institution 
by  such  things."  These  allusions  have  reference  to  certain  additions  and 
alterations  made  in  my  house,  and  to  certain  improvements  on  (he  Col- 
lege grounds  in  1843.  With  regard  to  the  first;  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1842  will  probably  recollect  some  pleasantries  of  that  date, 
about  "  building  three  Tabernacles."  Objection  having  been  made  to 
the  proposal  to  meet  again  at  Gambier,  on  the  ground  that  the  accommo- 
dations were  too  limited,  I  replied  with  great  earnestness  to  secure  the 
object,  and  after  expatiating  on  its  benefits  to  the  Institution — "  it  is  good 
for  us  to  meet  !;ere,  and  if  there  is  any  lack  of  accommodation,  let  us 
build  three  Tabernacles,"  &c.  The  point  was  carried,  and  in  the  spirit 
of  my  suggestion,  (as  well  as  to  provide  employment  for  two  meritorious 
young  men,  who  wished  to  support  themselves  in  the  Institution  by  me- 
chanic labor,)  I  undertook,  in  1843,  to  make  such  enlargements  in  my 
house  as  would  enable  me  to  accommodate  more  than  my  proportion  of 
the  Convention.  VVith  very  great  exertion,  these  improvements  were 
ready  in  season;  and  by  furnishing  a  large  room  in  the  College  with  beds, 
I  was  enabled  to  keep  open  house  for  some  25  or  30  guests  during  the 
Convention  week,  including  several  of  my  constituency,  the  Trustees, 
and  their  families. — And  now  comes  the  sequel.  Three  or  four  months 
are  passed,  and  lo !  my  own  family  is  turned  unceremoniously  out  of 
house  and  home,  by  these  very  Trustees,  and  my  pains  taking  and  labor 
to  promote  their  comfort,  and  the  comfort  of  the  Convention,  is  cast  with 
insult  into  my  teeth,  as  a  piece  of  useless  and  wasteful  prodigality !  Does 
the  Diocese  of  Ohio  endorse  this  proceeding, — in  taste,  in  feeling,  in 
rectitude,  or  inequity  ?t 

*  The  Bishop  makes  a  reflection  upon  the  style  of  the  fence,  as  if  it  was 
something  extra  ; — It  certainly  was  a  good  substantial  fence,  but  with  as  little 
pretension  to  style  as  possible,  nothing  in  fact  but  a  rough  oak  picketing. 
He  also  speaks  invidiously  of  my  enclosing  grounds  "  without  authority,"  for 
my  own  private  use.  What  use  1  Was  it  for  orchards  or  gardens  or  grain 
fields?  O  no  !  My  garden  when  I  went  there  was  a  very  small  patch, 
slightly  fenced,  and  surrounded  with  a  deep  triangled  thicket  of  cat  briers, 
almost  impracticable.  In  building  new  fences  I  tookin  a  portion  of  this  thick- 
et, lying  between  the  College  and  the  Chapel,  and  expended  upon  it  about 
$150  to  clear  it  out,  and  make  it, — look  beautiful !  And  this  was  all  the  use 
I  had  of  it. 

t  I  never  pretended  that  I  had  an  original  claim  to  reimbursement  for  these 
expenditures,  but  as  they  were  incurred  in  the  discharge  of  my  official  hospi- 
talities, and  in  reliance  upon  the  permanency  of  my  station,  they  are  justly 
chargeable,  and  will  have  to  be  paid. 


63 

Secondly,  as  to  expenditures  of  the  same  date  on  the  Colleg:e  grounds 
I  had  been  constituted,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Trustees  at  Chillicoihe,  in 
September,  1841,  tlie  agent  for  laying  out  and  improving  the  (park) 
grounds  around  the  College.  I  was  engaged  in  this  duty  in  the  S|  ring 
of  1S43,  with  a  small  balance  of  appropriation,  at  comman  ',  w  hich  I  was 
expending,  (with  the  unanimous  approbation  of  the  Faculty,)  in  the  con- 
struction of  a  substantial  and  tasteful  path  way,  underlaid  with  stone,  from 
the  College  towards  the  village.  My  balance  ran  out  as  I  reached  the 
front  of  the  Chapel,  and  there  I  proposed  to  stop.  Butasthe  students  and 
most  of  the  people  on  the  Hill,  were  struck  wiih  the  utility  and  beauty  of 
the  improvement,*  I  was  induced  {by  their  solicitation)  to  make  out  a 
plan  and  estimate  for  finisiiing  it,  with  a  substantial  gate  way  of  stcne  at 
its  outer  terminus  in  the  village.  Not  to  multiply  details,  I  proposed  that 
if  $100  could  be  raised  by  subscription  within  the  College,  I  would  pro- 
ceed, taking  the  risk  of  raising  the  balance  in  some  other  way,  and  upon 
this  arrangement  the  work  was  already  far  advanced  towards  completion 
when  the  Bishop  returned  from  (his  first  trip  to)  N.  Y.  Nothing  could 
exceed  the  fullness  of  his  approbation,  both  of  the  work  itself  and  the 
progress  made  in  it,  when  we  first  looked  at  it  together,  in  coming  from 
the  Chapel,  a  day  or  two  after  his  return.  "  How  do  you  manage  as  to  the 
expense  ?"  he  inquired.  I  explained  the  arrangement  to  him,  stating 
that  the  whole  subscription  would  probobly  reach  $150,  and  that  there 
would  still  be  a  deficit  of  about  §130.  "  6  !  we  11  take  care  of  that," 
said  he  in  reply,  and  so  I  considered  the  matter  settled.  Some  time  after, 
he  asked  me  about  the  front  fi-nce,  and  desired  that  I  would  put  that  in 
hand  also,  and  have  it  done,  if  possible,  by  the  mreting  of  the  Conven- 
tion, (in  Sept.")  which  I  did.  The  work  was  not  entirely  finished,  how- 
ever, till  the  Bishop  left,  on  his  second  trip  to  N.  Y.,  and  of  course  noth- 
ing more  passed  till  his  return.  A  week  or  two  after  that  event,  I  called 
upon  him  in  relation  to  the  subject,  and  requested  his  interposition,  as  I 
bad  been  put  to  some  inconvenience,  from  having  had  to  advance  most  of 
the  amount  myself.  "  Make  out  your  bills,"  said  he,  in  the  most  kind 
and  affable  manner,  "  include  every  thing;  I  shall  have  to  call  the  Trus- 
tees together  on  other  business,  and  it  will  be  a  good  time  to  present 
them."  Alas!  could  I  but  have  known  what  was  in  that  secretive  mind, 
at  that  moment! — but  I  spare  you  any  unnecessary  reflections.  It  was 
finally  agreed  that  the  accounts  should  be  referred  to  a  "  good  and  liberal 
minded"  Committee,  and  I  left  him  without  a  doubt  that  he  was  entirely 
concurrent  with  me,  in  all  respects. 

After  my  dismissal,  as  nothing  seemed  to  have  been  done  on  this  sub- 
ject, it  began  to  be  rumored  that  my  claims  were  not  to  be  allowed,  and 
one  or  two  persons  who  had  balances  still  due  them,  called  to  know  how 
they  should  get  their  pay.  I  referred  them  to  Mr.  While,  the  Agent,  and 
lodged  a  certificate  in  the  office,  that  the  improvements  were  made  by 
me  as  an  a^ent,  specially  appointed  to  lay  out  and  improve  the  grounds; 
that  the  path  and  gate-wav,  (when  part  done)  had  received  the  sanction 
of  Bp.  M.,  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  who  pledg^ed  himself 
that  the  deficit  should  be  provided  for;  and  finally,  that  the  fence  had 
been  built  at  the  specific  request  of  that  personage.  Upon  this  certificate 
one  of  the  creditors  immediately  put  his  claim  in  suit,  against  the  Insti- 
tution; and  some  interest  was  excited  on  the  Hill,  at  the  prospect  of  the 
trial.  But  care  was  taken  that  it  should  not  be  tried.  The  Agent  re- 
ceived instructions  to  settle  it,  the  evening  before  the  day  of  trial,  and  all 

•  Substantial  stone  paths  were  a  great  desideratum  in  that  country.  This 
was  10  feet  wide,  trenched  out  from  one  to  two  feet  deep,  and  filled  with 
stone  and  gravel.  Great  quantities  of  loose  stone  and  rubbish  were  also  re- 
moved from  the  grounds  in  making  it. 


64 

the  other  unpaid  balances  were  then  also  assumed.  If  Bishop  M.  thought 
my  claims  so  very  unfounded  why  did  he  pay  these  balances  which  were 
a  par!  of  them  ?  Why  did  he  evade  a  legal  decision,  which  would  have 
set  the  matter  at  once  and  forever  at  rest  ? 

It  was  in  rel  ilion  to  these  matters  that  the  correspondence  arose,  in 
which  I  am  accused  of  having  spoken  unbecomingly  to  Bishop  Mcll- 
vaine ;  and  which,  on  that  ground,  was  taken  by  him  as  a  pretext  for 
breaking  off  our  further  intercourse.  1  will  not  deny  that  my  letter  was 
a  very  severe  one, — more  severe,  it  may  be,  than  was  consistent  with  my 
own  dignity,  but  consider!  I  was  sealed  in  the  midst  of  the  ruins  of  all 
my  household  comforts  in  a  desolated  house, — writing,  peradvenlure 
upon  a  barrel-head,  with  a  medley  of  boxes  and  baskets  and  crockery 
piled  around  me, — my  furniture  having  just  been  sacrificed  under  the 
hammer  of  the  auctioneer,  to  meet  fur  the  second  time  a  Ibrctd  liquida- 
tion :  All  this  al  the  hands  of  my  "  old  friend."  A  letter  is  brought  to 
me.  Six  long  pages  of  the  most  refined  special  pleading,  to  show  that  I 
was  not  technically  authorized  to  make  certain  improvements  on  the 
College  grounds  ;  that  the  Bishop,  though  he  appeared  to  approve  of  it, 
did  not  so  in  reality  ;  and  that  one  hundred  and  forty-two  dollars 
and  twelve  and  a  half  cents,  if  you  [ilease,  expended  on  such  improve- 
ments, were  therefore  to  be  superadded  to  the  burden  of  my  other  cares. 
Is  it  surprising  (hat  under  such  circumstances  I  should  have  written  as  I  did, 
(a  private  letter)  to  the  author  of  these  things  ?  Tiie  Bisiiop  has  seasoned 
his  reply  with  a  few  garbled  extracts.     I  give  them  more  fully. 

*  *  •  Yon  say  that  our  conversation  (at  the  time  you  promised  to  make 
good  the  deficit)  was  exclusively  about  the  gateway.  I  athrm,  in  the  most 
solemn  manner,  (and  there  are  others  to  corroborate  me  if  needful,)  that  this 
is  diametrically  contrary  to  the  fact.  We  were  standing  in  front  of  the 
chapel,  which  we  had  just  left, — it  was  within  a  few  days  after  your  return 
from  New  York — you  began  the  conversation  by  remarking  in  the  most  ap. 
proving  manner,  that  I  had  done  '•  a  monstrous  deal  of  work  here" — point- 
ing directly  to  the  path,  which  was  full  before  us  in  an  unfinished  slate. — 
Almost  the  whole  conversation  was  of  the  path.  I  told  you  how  many  tons  of 
stone  there  were  in  it — how  many  loads  of  earth  had  been  removtd — what 
grading  and  levelling  had  been  done,  and  was  doing  upon  the  risjht  and  left, 
&c.  &c.  The  gate  ivas  spoken  of,  but  much  more  remotely,  and  the  state- 
ment of  expenses  was  distinctly  and  emphatically  for  the  whole  work. 

1  further,  and  most  solemnly  affirm  that  the  deficit,  which  was  then  and 
there  assumed  by  you,  was  not  a  mere  deficit  in  name,  but  an  estimated 
arnonni  in  dollars. (viz.  $130) — conditioned  upon  the  fact  that  the  $150  which 
I  said  I  had  hoped  to  raise  by  private  subscription,  was  actually  so  raised. 
I  affirm  also  (hat  your  language  and  manner  at  that  lime  and  afterwards, 
were  of  the  most  cordial  and  unqualified  approbation  of  the  whole  luork,  as  a 
great  and  eminently  beneficial  improvement  to  the  College  ;  and  that  from 
that  time  to  the  date  of  your  recent  letter,  I  never  heard  from  you  one  word 
of  disapprobation.  The  indebtedness  ol  the  College  was  never  once  alluded 
to.  You  had  just  returned  from  New  York  whence  you  had  written,  and 
brought  the  most  flattering  account  of  your  success  in  raisins;  money,  with 
the  prospect  of  speedily  paying  off  the  whole  debt  of  the  Institution.  Any 
discouragement  on  that  ground  therefore  would  have  been  strangely  out  of 
place;  while  on  the  other  hand,  a  little  ionus  for  the  improvement  of  the 
College,  was  not  only  justified,  but  under  the  circumstances,  the  most  natu- 
ral suggestion  of  common  good  taste  and  feeling.         •        »        « 

Speaking  of  my  call  upon  him  after  his  (second)  return  from  New 
York,  the  letter  proceeds  : 

You  received  the  application  in  the  most  gracious  manner,  made  not  the 
slightest  objection, — said  not  a  word  of  disapprobation  to  any  part  of  the 
work,  and  yourself  suggested  that  I  should  make  out  a  statement  of  the 
whole,  and  bring  it  before  the  Board  of  Trustees,  saying  that  they  were  about 


65 

to  be  called  together  on  other  business.  I  beg  you  to  note  particularly  that 
up  to  this  lime,  and  in  fact  to  the  very  meeting  of  the  Board,  you  had  never 
on  any  occasion  made  the  least  objection;  or  intimated  by  any  sign  to  we  that 
you  did  not  cordially  approve  of  the  whole  work.  On  the  contrary,  on  the 
occasion  just  referred  to,  your  words  and  manner  were  most  decidedly  favor- 
able, and  such  as  left  in  my  mind  no  manner  of  doubt  that  you  were  so,  in 
feeling  and  sentiment  as  well  as  in  taste. 

And  now,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  account  for  the  exceeding  modesty,  as  you 
are  pleased  to  call  it,  of  my  application  to  the  Board.  l!ou  had,  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  your  kindness,  promised  me  a  special  committee,  with  whom  I  could 
confer  at  large  on  the  subject  of  these  expenditures,  and  it  was  only  necessary 
therefore  to  address  the  Board  in  such  terms  as  would  bring  the  matter  fairly 
before  them.  There  could  be  no  need  of  an  ex  parte  statement  where  no  an- 
tagonism was  known  to  exist.  The  Board  were  presumed  to  be  liberally 
minded; — its  chairman,  professedly,  and  to  all  appearance,  my  friend.  The 
hostile  and  illiberal  feeling  you  now  exhibit  was  then,  as  yet  concealed — a 
mental  reservation  in  the  deep  recesses  of  your  dark  double  mind  ;  and  so 
completely  disguised  under  the  outer  garb  of  smiles  and  courtesy,  that  to 
my  poor  simple  apprehension,  there  was  not  the  slightest  ground  oi suspicion. 
that  all  was  not  equally  fair  within. 

You  proceed  to  say  with  a  good  deal  of  declamation,  that  the  Board  felt 
"  deeply  and  strongly"  that  the  works  referred  to  •'  were  not  good  and  pro- 
per improvements ;"  I  know  very  well  now,  the  process  by  which  the 
opinions  of  the  Board  are  formed  ;  but  how  does  it  happen  that  they  should 
have  passed  a  vote  of  thanks  for  these  very  works  in  September  last?  Sir, 
I  have  the  best  reason  for  believing  that  they  had  no  such  feeling  as  that  here 
represented.  The  greater  part  of  them  declared  to  me  and  others  on  the 
Hill,  that  they  thought  the  improvements  highly  important  and  valuable,  and 
that  they  ought  to  be  paid  for — and,  (unless  they  too  practice  upon  the  ethics 
of  the  secreta  monita)  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  a  vote  to  that  effect 
would  have  passed,  if  you  had  not  been  perfidious. 

A  word  or  two  as  to  the  substance  of  your  present  feeling — you  think — (and 
such  it  appears  was  your  secret  mind,  even  when  you  were  professing  the 
contrary) — that  the  works  in  question,  were  in  bad  taste,  considering  the  in- 
debtedness of  the  Institution,  and  that  those  who  had  money  to  appropriate 
to  such  objects,  might  better  have  employed  it,  in  removing  that  indebt- 
edness. 

This  is  certainly  a  dmnfcresfed  and  liberal  minded  thought!  Why  did  it 
not  occur  to  you,  when  you  were  laying  out  7  or  8000  dollars,  for  your  own 
private  accommodation,  on  your  house.  There  was  indebtedness  then  as  well 
as  nou> — and  the  appropriation  of  this  sum  at  that  time — besides  reducing  the 
principal  debt,  would  have  saved  to  the  Institution  at  least  5,000  dollars  of 
interest  money.  Your  predecessor  was  content  to  live  in  a  very  humble  dwel- 
ling, so  that  he  could  appropriate  his  means  and  energies  to  the  welfare  of 
the  Institution — you  build  a  splendid  palace  for  yourself — suffering  Kenyon 
Colleae  to  degenerate  into  the  filthy  'sty  I  found  it  in  1841,  and  when  in  the 
progress  of  my  unceasing  efforts  to  give  it  somewhat  of  the  dignity  and  char- 
acter which  a  College  ought  to  have,  a  few  hundred  dollars  are  expended,  it 
is  denounced  oy  you  as  a  "  most  unjustifiable  expenditure."  Such  is  how- 
ever the  narrow,  illiberal  and  selfish  spirit,  by  which  all  your  administration 
here,  has  been  characterized. 

There  is  one  more  topic  in  your  letter,  on  which,  before  taking  leave  of  it, 
I  must  make  a  few  remark?,  viz. — your  bold  and  unblushing  avowal  of  thnt 
most  dishonest  of  all  Jesuitical  artifices  ;  mental  reservation.  A  large  part  of 
your  letter  is  the  quotation  of  your  secret  mind,  as  the  criterion  of  obligation 
and  duty,  in  diametrical  opposition  to  the  plain  and  explicit  declarations  of 
your  lips.  I  can  hardly  realize  it — I  ask  myself  in  amazement,  if  this  can  be 
the  same  man  in  whom  I  used  to  place  confidence — alas  !  how  are  the  mighty 
fallen.  But,  while  I  am  slow  to  realize  this  double-dealing  policy,  the  avowal 
of  it  has  I  confess  unlocked  a  world  of  mystery  which  I  had  otherwise  found  it 
even  Tnore  difficult  to  realize.  I  now  see  how  your  pledges  an  J  promises,  so  lav- 
ishly proffered  to  me  before  I  came  here,  have  been  utterly  disregarded  since. 

9 


66 

Those  eloquent  appeals,  and  that  solemn  adjuration  in  the  name  of  the  church 
by  which  I  was  induced  to  come  "  and  consecrate  myself  to  this  work  lor 
hie" — alas!  how  quickly  dishonored  and  forgollen  by  you.  The  smiles  and 
courtesy  with  which  you  received  me  in  public,  while  you  and  those  in  your 
confidence,  were  endeavoring  l)y  secret  detraction  lo  undermine  and  destroy 
me.  Your  disclaimer  in  regaid  to  my  dismissal,  when  by)our  own  confes- 
sion you  were  holding  secret  councils  to  bring  it  about:  And  finally,  the 
overflowing  expression  of  your  kindness  and  sympathy  in  your  letter  of  con- 
dolence, when  within  three  days  alter,  you  were  laboring  with  your  utmost 
zeal  to  disparaae  my  life  and  character,  and  render  me  odious  and  contempti- 
ble to  my  former  pupils: — These  things  were  somewhat  mysterious,  but  now 
1  understand  them. 

Bishop!  I  speak  plainly  to  you  on  these  subjects  from  principle — it  is  high 
time  somebody  should  do  so,  and  there  is  nobody  else  on  this  hill,  who  dares. 
The  time-servers  and  flatterers  whom  you  have  drawn  around  you  have  other 
business  in  hand,  and  would  no<,if  they  dare ;  and  sir,  if  you  are  not  speedily 
roused  to  a  sense  of  your  perilous  position,  and  led  under  the  guidance  of  di- 
vine grace,  to  repent  and  do  your  first  works,  you  are  a  lost  man. 

Respectfully  yours,  &c.,  D.B.DOUGLASS, 

I  know  this  Is  very  severe.  1  will  n.>t  say  that  regarding  the  office  and 
dignity  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine  I  was  wholly  jtislifiable  in  writing  it.  It 
was  "out  of  my  grief  and  ray  irnpatience"  (hat  I  did  so.  But  I  must 
say,  after  mature  deliberation,  thai  as  regards  the  man  who  had  thus 
wron,<xed,  and  was  wronging  me,  1  do  not  see  that  I  could  have  expressed 
mvseif  very  differently.  Deeply  do  I  regret  that  he  did  not  see  til  lo  act 
upon  my  su<jgeslion. 

But  I  f(!el  Ihat  there  is  a  mystery  involved  in  all  this  which  ought  not 
longer  lo  go  unexplained.  The  question  which  you  and  other  friends 
have  asked,  will  naturally  press  ilseJf  upon  Ihe  mind  of  every  reader  who 
has  followed  me  thus  far.  "  How  could  Ihe  Bishop,  so  long,  and  so  unre- 
servedly your  friend,  prior  to  1841,  have  become  so  bitterly  your 
enemy  in  1844  !"     That  question  I  will  now  attempt  to  answer. 

I  suppose  it  will  not  be  denied — it  was  a  fuel  very  notorious  at  the  lime, 
that,  for  some  years  |)rior  lo  1839-40,  there  had  been  a  division  of  senti- 
ment, a  party  feeling,  gradually  growing^  up  on  ihe  Hill  at  Gamhier,  and 
in  Ihe  Diocese  of  Ohio,  against  Bp.  Mcllvaine;  that  ihis  opposition  ral- 
lied under  the  name  of  Dr.  Sparrow,  [embracing  pretty  nearly  the  same 
elements  that  had  been  opposed  to  Bp.  Chase,]  and  that,  somewhere  about 
the  date  first  mentioned,  it  had  become  so  formidable  as  lo  have  made  it 
a  practical  question,  which  should  prevail.  The  collision  in  the  Board 
of  Trustees,  noticed  in  a  former  part  of  this  letter,  viz :  with  regard  to  (he 
powers  of  the  President,  [of  the  Board]  and  the  discretionary  functions 
of  (he  Prudential  Committee,  were  a  part  of  this  controversy :  And  in  Ihe 
Convention  of  the  same  year,  [1839]  at  Steubenville,  the  whele  matter 
was  brought  lo  a  direct  issue  by  the  Bishop  himself.* 

The  points  specifically  presented  for  debate,  were  certain  amendments 
in  the  Con'^titution  of  the  Theological  Senr,inary.  First,  to  exclude  all 
officers  "of  the  Seminary  or  any  institution  annexed  thereto  "  [virtually 
Dr.  Sparrow  and  his  friends]  from  seats  in  the  Board  of  Truslres.  Sec- 
ondly, to  vest  (he  power  of  the  Prudential  Committee,  permanently  in  the 
Bishop — putting  an  end  loall  antagonism  from  that  quarter.  And  finally, 
to  annex,  pro  forma,  a  College,  [which  had  already  been  annexed,  en- 
dowed, and  in  full  operation  for  13  years] — with  a  seperale  Faculty  and 
President — to  be  nominated  by  the  Bishop,  [another  exclusion  lo  Dr. 
Sparrow.]  The  Convention  was  a  small  one,  but  a  favourable  report 
having  been  obtained  from  a  Committee  of  reference,  the  measures  were 

*  He  had  no  alternative  as  he  distinctly  informed  me,  but  to  put  down  tbat 
opposition  or  quit  the  Diocese. 


67 

evenfually  carried  with  some  modifications.  The  party  question,  how- 
ever, was  not  considered  as  settled,  li  I  the  Convention  ol  1840.  The 
steps  which  were  taken  to  ensure  a  preponderance  in  tliat  Convention,  it 
is  not  necessary  now  to  particularize.  The  Bishop  was  still  doubtful  of 
the  result  when  he  visiled  New  York  and  Brooklyn  in  llie  sun»mtTo(  iLat 
year,  and  spoke  deterniiiiately  to  me  and  others  ol  his  intention  t.>  resign 
in  case  he  should  be  out  voted.  He  walnut  out-voled,  however,  the  ques- 
tion »vas  settled  in  his  favor,  and  the  results  were  decisive,  to  \\  it — a  '•  new 
Board  an  I  a  right  Board"  oi  Trust  ties;  an  entire  new  Faculty  in  li.e  Col- 
lege; a  President,  not  Dr.  Sparrow;  the  resignation  of  the  latter,  and 
other  of  the  Professors  and  officers;  changes  in  the  headship  of  both 
Grammar  Schools;  a  change  in  the  Agency;  and  generally,  the  displace- 
ment, by  some  means,  of  every  officer,  who  had  been  at  all  prominent  in 
the  late  oppoHlion — except  Mr.  Wing  I  Mr.  Wing  was  allowed 
TO  KKMAiK,  not,  as  the  Bishop  informed  me,  because  he  had  ci  nfidence 
in  him,*  but  because  he  thought  him  harmless.  Mr.  Blake,  and  peihaps 
one  or  two  others,  suspected  of  a  leaning  towards  the  Sparrow  interest^ 
were  also  retained,  and  besides  them  of  course,  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
party  generally.! 

Such  were  the  circumstances  under  which  I  commenced  my  Presiden- 
tial career,  in  the  Spring  of  1841.  Chosen  by  Bishop  Mcllvaiiie  as  a 
"dear  and  old  friend" — "elected  with  acclamation  by  a  new  Board  and 
a  right  Board" — and  announced  on  my  arrival  in  terms  which  1  need  not 
now  repeat.  The  occasion  was  hailed  as  a  new  era  in  the  prospects  of 
the  College.  At  the  dale  of  the  Convention  of  Chillicoihe,  my  adminis- 
trstion  was  spoken  of  as  having  already  "  infused  new  life  and  vigor  into 
all  the  government  and  instruction."  And  again  in  ihe  Spring  of  1842, 
ahighlv  complimentary  vote  on  the  state  and  prospects  of  the  Institution, 
was  passed  by  the  Board  of  Trustees  at  Cincinnati.  Generally,  it  may  be 
said,  the  improved  condition  of  the  College  in  every  respect,  external  and 
internal,  was  a  subject  of  remaik  and  congratulation  to  all  the  fiiends  of 
the  Institution,  conversant  with  it.  Even  Ihe  Bishop's  "  op|)onents"  con- 
curred in  this  But  now  in  the  midst  of  these  bright  pros[)ects,  when 
every  thinif  seemed  to  point  with  unerring  certainly  towards  the  con  um- 
mation  of  the  good  wishes  andhisrh  hopes  of  the  friends  of  the  Insliliil><m; 
wh^t  was  my  grief  and  mortificalion  to  find  the  countenance  of  Bp.  M. 
averted  from  me  ;  our  intercouse,  without  any  failure  on  my  part,  grown 
cold  and  formal ;  my  plans  and  aims,  involving  no  expense,  disparaged; 
the  popular  approval  of  my  admi  istralion  listened  to  with  evident  repug- 
nance; and  myself  studiou.sly  thrown  back  to  such  a  distance  fiom  him- 
self and  Ihe  Board  of  Trustees,  as  almost  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  any 
confidential  intercouse  with  either. J 

•  They  were  scarcely  upon  terms  of  common  intercoarsc. 

t  My  representation  of  the  state  of  society  on  the  Hill,  at  the  time  of 
my  arrival  in  n41,  is  controverted  in  the  Reply,  but  not  with  truth.  There 
was  nothing  like  social  intercouse  so  far  nt  least  as  Bishop  Mcllvaineand 
his  family  were  concernel.  The  principal  families  next  in  order,  weie  Prof. 
Sparrow's.  Prof.  Wina's,  Prof.  Mucnscher's,  and  ex-Prof  Bache's;  and  I 
should  like  to  know  in  which  of  these,  there  was  any  cordial  intimacy  or  in- 
tercourse kept  up  with  the  Kpi'-copal  mansion.  Prof  Ros« — a  stranger  un- 
til I  arrived — was  so  struck  with  the  stale  of  thinas  Ihnt  he  was  temple'',  as 
he  told  me,  if  I  had  much  longer  delayed  my  coming,  to  throw  up  his  appoint- 
ment and  return  to  New  York. 

X  They  try  very  hard  to  make  it  appear  that  I  had  some  ambitions  project, 
some  "  new  views"  or  "  claims  that  were  inconsistent  with  the  decisions  or 


68 

While  I  \ras  yet  in  the  midst  of  my  grief  and  amazement  under  these 
painful  experiences,  lo  !  another  wonder  is  presented  : — Mr.  Wikg,  as- 
sisted by  Mr.  Blake,  taking  the  lead,  in  a  [glorification']  movement,  and 
a  memorial  addressed  to  the  Bishop  in  the  feai  of  his  removal  to  Cincin- 
nati. [Reply,  p.  34.]  The  very  men  whose  opposition  two  years  before 
had  nearly  .sent  him  an  exile  from  his  Diocese,  now  rushing-  to  his  side 
with  sanctimonious  horror  at  the  bare  idea  of  his  removal  irom  the  Hill. 

Then,  after  an  interval  of  three  or  four  weeks,  came  tlie  Bish>p's  an- 
gry and  violent  outbreak  upon  mb  in  his  study,  [see  Statement,  p.  29  ]* 
revealing  in  its  connexions  and  consequences,  the  fact  that  Mr.  Wing, 
one  of  the  leaders  of  the  late  anti-Bishup  party,  was  now  in  the  full  and 
exclusive  confidence  of  the  Bishop;  and  /an  alien. 

Then  followed  two  or  three  days  afterward,  the  [cruel]  letter  to  the 
Faculty  on  the  subject  of  the  Catalogue,  of  which  a  copy  is  given  in  the 
Reply,  [p.  43  ]  The  Bishop  thinks  it  was  not  cruel,  but  if  he  can  point 
out  a  more  insidious  device  lo  create  a  breach  between  me  and  the  Fac- 

the  Convention  of  1S39.  Mr.  SmallwooJ.  I  believe,  has  something  to  say  on 
this  subject;  but  it  is  all  false.  Neither  Mr.  S.  or  any  body  else  can  name  a 
single  claim  ever  urged  by  me  that  was  inconsistent  with  those  decisions,  or 
with  any  established  rule  or  law  of  the  Institution.  If  any  thing,  I  thought 
that  Loo  muck  had  been  conceded  to  the  Presidency  of  the  College  in  those  de- 
cisions, instead  of  too  little,  and  so  declared  myself  to  the  Bishop  and  others 
repeatedly.  One  of  the  reasons  assigned  by  me  to  Hp.  M.  for  the  immediate 
drawing  up  of  a  code,  was  that  /  should  be  willing  to  concede  many  things 
for  the  sake  of  a  right  organization,  which  another  perhaps  would  not.  (See 
former  Statement,  p.  26.) 

•  The  Bishop  gives  a  modified  version  of  this  interview,(p  41 — 2.)  from  a. 
memorandum  which  he  says  was  penned  within  five  minutes  after  I  left  liim. 
Had  he  waited  lour  or  five  hours,  it  would  probably  have  been  less  affected  by 
the  excited  impressions  of  the  moment.  Tht  stamp  of  the  foot  of  which  he 
speaks  is  a  pure  invention.  God  is  my  witness  that  there  was  nothing  ol  the 
kind.  The  phrase  "  we'll  see  to  that,"  was  not  used  in  the  connection  in 
which  be  places  it ;  and  the  attempt  at "  explanation,"  which  the  Bishop  says 
he  made,  was  not  made  at  all.  Every  word  uttered  from  the  time  I  took  my 
hat  till  I  left  him,  was  the  bitterest  recrimination  and  reprimand.  In  regard 
to  what  did  take  place,  I  solemnly  re-assert  all  that  I  said  in  my  former 
statement,  and  I  coul  I,  if  it  were  necessary,  go  into  other  particulars.  He 
was  in  a  slate  of  excitement  when  I  went  in.  All  his  answers  were  testy  and 
impatient — the  answers  of  an  angry  unreasonable  man;  and  I  changed  the 
course  ol"  my  remarks  once  or  twice,  to  avoid  his  angry  mood.  We  were 
talking  of  matters  perfectly  indifferent,  when  he  branched  off  into  an  invide- 
ous  parallel  between  his  labours  and  mine.  I  still  answered  nothing,  except 
to  acknowledge  the  greatness  of  his  labours  and  express  my  willingness  to  aid 
him  if  in  my  power  to  do  so;  to  which  he  replied  with  the  insulting  sneer,  as 
heretofore  slated.  When  I  was  about  leaving  the  room,  he  said,  in  a  loud 
anlhoritative  tone,  I  want  to  know,  sir,  what  it  is  you  are  grumbling  about) 
— I  can  fight  it  out  now  as  well  as  any  time."  I  disclaimed  having  any  thing 
to  Ji;^ht  out,  and  he  proceeded  with  increased  vehemence,  "  ynu  want  lo  be  in- 
depenilent,  1  understand,  but  I'll  let  you  know  I  am  President  over  every  part 
and  parcel  of  the  College,  the  same  as  over  the  Seminary."  Pestered  at  length 
out  of  patience,  ani  greatly  surprised  at  this  new  assumption  of  power,  I 
turned  upon  him  and  replied:  "  I  was  not  appointed,  sir,  with  any  such  un- 
derstanling,  and  I  never  will  recognize  you  in  that  character."  (1  conceded 
almost  every  thing,  however,  in  the  subsequent  interview.) 

I  am  not  unaware  of  the  responsibility  of  these  declarations.  I  make  them 
upon  my  conscience,  and  with  certainty  that  they  are  categorically  correct. 
My  habits  of  attention  had  been  disciplined  by  seventeen  years  daily  exercise 
with  pupils  at  the  black-board;  and  were  not  likely  to  fail  me  on  such  an  oc- 
casion as  this. 


69 

ulty,  he  is  more  perspicacious  in  that  way  than  I  can  pretend  to  be.  I 
will  not  waste  words  on  the  subject,  however,  further  than  lo  give,  in  the 
margin,  an  extract  from  my  letter  in  reply.* 

Wext,  after  another  short  interval,  came  the  petty  intrigue  to  throw  me 
out  of  the  delegation  lo  the  special  convention.  The  bishop  speaks  of 
this  as  an  evidence  of  my  great  unpopularity,  but  the  people  had  no  more 
to  do  wilh  it  than  your.seli.  By  their  vole  1  was  in  fact  already  a  dele- 
gale;  a  legal  delegate,  incapable  of  being  displaced  by  any  vote  of  ihe 
vestry  ;  and  the  movemeni  to  displace  me  instead  of  being  a  popular 
movement  was  directly  opposed  to  the  popular  decision.  A  pretence 
was  made  (by  those  who  knew  at  the  lime  that  it  was  illegal,  accoiding 
to  the  articles  of  our  association)  lo  elect  a  special  delegation  to  lliat  con- 
vention. A  liltle  cabal  of  three  persons  (Scolt.  Warner  and  Sims,)  was 
moved  to  oppose  my  election,  and  several  ballots  were  taken  before  a 
choice  was  made.  As  this  was  the  first  instance  of  an  obstinate  division 
in  the  vostry  since  I  had  been  senior  warden,  1  asked  Mr.  Scott  what  was 
the  meaning  of  it  .^  and  his  answer  was,  •'  we  weie  told,  sir,  that  you 
were  opposed  to  the  selling  of  the  lands."  This  revelation  then,  seemed 
to  unravel  ihe  mystery  of  all  the  recent  proceedings.  The  only  persons 
with  whom  I  could  recollect  having  conversed  on  the  subject  of  selling 
the  lands,  were  Bi.-hop  Mcllvaine  and  Mr.  Wing.  The  latter  in  particu- 
lar, had  repeatedly  argued  wilh  me  at  great  length,  and  with  earnestness, 
the  policy  of  sale  ;  and  putting  all  these  things  together,  I  could  not  doubt 
thai  the  ascendancy  lo  which  /te  had  now  raised  himself  in  the  confidence 
of  the  Bishop,  had  this  at  least  for  one  of  its  objects  ;  and  under  this 
impression  1  immediately  sat  down  and  wrote  the  ibilowing  note. 

Dear  Bp — I  write  in  all  sincerity  as  in  times  past.  I  have  indeed  been 
most  deeply  wounded  by  your  changed  conduct  towards  me,  (changed  I 
solemnly  declare,  without  any  just  cause.)  after  so  many  years  of  uninter- 
rupted intercourse  and  confidence,  and  after  so  conclusive  an  evidence  of  my 
devotion  to  yourself  and  the  Institution,  as  was  given  you  in  my  coming  here. 
But  I  am  now  satisfied  that  your  mind  must  have  been  abused  in  regard  to 
me  for  sinister  purposes,  and  I  am  greatly  mistaken  if  there  be  not  a  plot  in 
progress  boiing  no  good  t>  either  of  us,  or  to  the  Institution.  Is  it  fit  that 
our  little  differences  shonld  keep  us  under  these  circumstances,  where  our 
enemies  would  wi-h  to  keep  us,  at  sword's  points  ?  There  is  nothing  on  ray 
side  that  may  not  be  settled  between  us  in  five  minutes  ;  and  if  I  have  seemed 
to  give  any  cause  of  offence  to  you,  I  think  it  may  be  explained  in  as  little 
lime.  If  you  are  disposed  to  meet  me  on  this  ground,  (and  I  repeat  my  be- 
lief that  it  is  of  vital  consequence  to  ourselves  and  to  the  Institution),  I  will 
come  to  you  alone  at  8^  o'clock  this  evening.  Drop  me  a  line,  and  give  no 
intimation  to  any  one  of  my  intended  visit.  Yours,  &.c. 

•"  Your  note  tome  of  the  24th  June  last,  contained  no  intimation  of  any  de- 
sire or  expectation  on  your  part  that  it  should  be  laid  before  the  Faculty.  On 
the  contrary  the  note  and  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  it.  gave  me 
the  impression  without  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  it  was  for  me  alone;  and 
that  it  required  no  answer.  I  had  conversed  with  you  at  my  study  on  the 
23d,  and  informed  you  of  what  had  transpired  in  the  Faculty  <m  the  subject 
of  the  Catalogue,  and  also  that  I  was  then  engaged  in  the  work  of  preparing 
it.  You  replied  that  you  would  request  Mr.  Wing  to  act  with  me  on  behalf 
of  the  Theological  Faculty,  and  the  note  received  on  the  day  following  was, 
as  I  understood  it,  a  mere  announcement  that  you  had  done  so." 

"  Allow  me  a  further  word  in  regard  to  the  subsequent  failure  of  the  arrange- 
ment I  supposed  it  a  matter  of  too  great  notoriety  to  need  the  form  of  an 
explanation  that  within  a  few  days  of  the  date  referred  lo,  my  eyes,  in  conse- 
quence of  excessive  application,  and  mental  anxiety,  were  attacked  with  the 
first  symptoms  of  a  malady,  apparently  of  the  most  dangerous  and  fatal  char- 
acter, so  that  it  became  necessary  lo  suspend  all  literary  labour  of  whatever 
kind,  for  several  months." 


70 

The  meeting  took  place  as  proposed,  and  in  the  spirit  of  my  note  I  con- 
ceded and  was  willing'  to  concede  every  thing  (concedable)  for  the  sake 
of  httrniony  and  ihe  interests  at  stake.  To  some  extent  I  succeeded. — 
Many  strange  misapprehensions  into  which  the  Bishop  had  been  betrayed 
either  ihiough  the  blindness  of  his  own  passions,  or  iiy  the  arts  of  tl,o>e« 
around  him,  were  removed  ;  and  as  far  as  I  was  ahle  to  draw  his  niitid 
from  its  concealment,  he  expressed  himself  salisfied.  The  relations  of 
external  courtesy  were  restored,  and  I  cannot  doubt  that  this  circunisianee 
^ave  me  the  position  in  which  I  was  enabled  to  act  with  so  good  etr^ct 
m  the  convention  for  the  saving  of  the  lands.*  But  the  desiii;ns  of  the 
"  Clique,"  as  it  turned  out,  were  not  limited  t-)  that  object.  They  still 
retained  their  position  "  behind  the  throne.^'  keeping  appearances,  in- 
deed, with  me,  while  the  Bishop  was  raising  his  funds  i/i  the  East;  but 

the  moment  that  end  was  attained,  the  blow  was  struck,  and   * 

Dr.  Sparrow  NOMINATED  by  Bishop  McIlvaine  as  my  succes- 
s  )r  !  I  "  What  think  you  now,"  said  an  Ohio  correspondent,  "  of  the 
power  behind  the  throne  ?" 

The  Dr.  (wisely)  declined  the  appointment,  however,  and  two  or  three 
others  have  since  declined  ;  and  the  Presidency  ot  Kenyon  College,  with 
nil  its  "  pecuniary  convenience,"  is  now  literally  "  a  begging"  again. 
He  will  be  an  adventurous  spirit  who  accepts  it,  under  a  regime  which  is 
ready  to  repudiate  all  its  solemn  obligations  at  the  next  change  of  the 
moon  ;  and  to  add  contumely  and  insult,  if  the  "  temper"  of  the  victim 
should  render  that  necessity  "  imperious,"         *        *        * 

I  am  sorry  for  Bishop  McIlvaine.  Greatly  as  he  has  injured  me  and 
mine,  I  mourn  with  unfeigned  sorrow  over  the  position  in'o  which  by  his 

•  The  part  taken  by  me  in  the  proceedings  of  Ihe  special  convenlion,  as  set 
forth  in  myslatemenl  is  denied  of"  course  in  the  Reply,  and  reference  is  made 
for  proof,  to  the  Journal.  Will  the  respondent  please  to  tell  us  from  the 
journal,  whether  the  books  of  the  Institution  were  before  the  Convenlion? 
The  Bishop  introduced  them  in  his  address,  were  they  forlhconiinsj  ?  Will 
he  tell  u«  from  the  journal,  on  what  business  the  house  went  into  committee  of 
the  whole  ?  and  what  report  was  made  by  that  committee  when  it  rose? 
What  resolution*;  were  referred  to  a  select  committee  ?  and  what  became  of 
them  afterwards  ?  The  journal  is  very  lame  on  all  these  points.  The  fact  is, 
that  when  every  one  was  filled  with  doubt  and  fear  and  uncertainty,  as  to 
the  course  to  be  pursued,  and  it  was  undersloo  that  the  committee  of  refer- 
ence would  only  report  in  general  terms.  /  proposed  at  a  certain  breakfast 
table,  that  a  direct  attempt  should  be  made  to  get,  in  Ohio,  100  subscriptions 
— in  lividnals  or  clubs. —  of  $100  each,  payable  by  instalments  in  two  years, 
and  to  make  that  the  basis  of  an  appeal  out  of  tiie  stale.  The  proposition 
beine  approved.  1  brought  it  before  the  house  as  soon  as  the  committee's  re- 
port was  disposed  of.  After  some  discussion  it  was  referred  to  the  commit- 
tee of  the  whole,  and  there  debated  for  some  hours.  It  was  the  test  questioi 
between  the  flrfi'oca/e<  and  opponents  of  sale,  and  no  pnins  were  spared  on 
the  part  of  the  former  to  defeat  it.  It  was  eventually  carried,  however,  in 
the  form  in  which  it  appears,  and  has  proved  as  it  was  intendeil,  the  etfeclive 
besinninw  of  the  entire  movement  for  paying  the  debt.  I  do  not  wish  to  dis- 
parasreihe  labors  of  Bishop  McIlvaine  in  raising  the  money,  though  I  grently 
deprecate  in  some  particulars  the  means  employed  ;  but  there  was  a  time 
when  the  Bishop  an  I  the  principal  leaders  of  opinion  on  the  Hill  were  loud 
in  favor  of  sale,  an  I  I  repeat  the  declaraion  that  it  was  my  motion  in  the 
speciil  convenlion  and  the  debate  thereon,  that  chiefly  defeated  that  policy. 
Mr.  E.  H.  Cummings,  who  len  Is  his  name  to  the  denial  of  this  statement, 
knows  all  these  facts.  He  and  Col,  Bond  know  also  ihat  the  statement  of 
the  language  used  by  them  in  my  study,  in  regard  to  Bishop  McI lvalue's  over- 
bearing deportment  in  the  Board  of  Trustees  is  true  Cummings  assert- 
ed it  in  terms  ;  and  Bond,  with  a  shrug  far  more  significant  than  words,  ex- 
pressed his  assent. 


71 

lust  of  temporal  power  he  has  betra3'ed  himself.  Gladly  would /have 
avoided  ihe  necessity  which  his  wrong  doing  imposed  upon  me,  of  speak- 
ing of  him  as  1  havi  ;  and  though  1  may  yet  have  other  steps  to  take  for 
the  maintenance  of  my  just  rights,  I  shall  never  cease  to  utier  fnr  him 

fi'ith  reverence  and  simplicity,  the  prayer  which  the  Church  pu«s  into  the 
ips  of  her  children,  for  "  all  those  who  have  done,  or  wish  us  evil." 

Ever  yours,  &c. 

P.  S    I  find  I  have  inadvertently  passed  over  some  insinuations  which 
I  intended  to  expose.     But  it  does  not  signify. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGiONAL  LIBRARY  FACiLITY 

405  Hiigard  Avenue,  Lo«  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  iitirary 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


Unive 

So 

I 


w 


